Well, technically, you're right, dark energy doesn't have mass. However, it should have negative mass (considering that regular energy does have mass). This is what makes dark enery (which is a misleading term I think)and dark matter quite opposite. If the universe if full of dark matter (which emits an attractive force), then that means that if there is enough, the universe may be closed because there is enough matter to slow down the expansion of the universe, reverse it, and cause collapse (due to the gravitational attraction between all of the matter of the universe to each other).
However, if there is enough negative ("dark") energy in the universe, which emits a repulsive force (that INCREASES, or accelerates over distance, which is opposite of the gravitational force, which decreases over distance - I believe that's what Einstein was getting at with the cosmological constant), than the universe 's expansion is accelerating, which in my mind would imply an open universe. I'm not sure how one could have a universe that has accelerating expansion, yet remain closed or flat. I apologize if any of the above is incorrect, I haven't taken a physics class in a long time:-)
Well, if you want to figure out the radius yourself, it's defined as R=2GM/c^2, where R is the Schwarzschild Radius, G is the Gravitational Constant, M is the mass, and c is the speed of light (in this case squared)
Also, isn't the visible size of the universe something like 10^26 km (do I have the right units?)?
Anyway, I doubt that our universe is a black hole, simply because, well, what at the center of a black hole? A singularity. And what happens to all objects that are inside of the black hole? They head straight for the singularity. An object would have to travel superluminous speeds to overcome this difficulty. It APPEARS that the universe is expanding, and that most of the galaxies are moving away from each other, and I doubt that they are traveling faster than light (or else we probably wouldn't be able to see them).
Well, I know that a while back, some company couldn't get the right (or permission) to use Sean Connory's likeness for some game (another CCG?), so they had to use a shadow that vaguely looked like him. I'm not sure if it was illegal for them to use his likeness without his permission, or if they did it just to be nice. Also, I'm not sure what the laws in Japan. 97 million is pretty steep though, but if it's a company that has a lot of money, I guess you try to take it to the bank. I wouldn't want to see him win either, but it appears inevitable. I guess a fictional character with the same last name as you and who bends spoons (allegedly) like you counts as a likeness.... any thoughts though?
What are we exactly celebrating? 1999 years after we incorrectly decided when Christ was born? And I know that there are going to be non-Christians celebrating this:-)
First of all, this isn't the "millenium" (whatever that is anyway) - that arrives in 2001. Even Arthur C. Clarke named his book "2001" because he had the insight to know that the millenium doesn't start until 2001. Our needless celebration means nothing outside of earth anyway. So why bother? Because it's a social celebration. Because we arbitrarily decide that we are going to have a huge celebration on a certain date. If we are going to do that, maybe we should do it more often, and make up holidays left and right. At least most holidays mark the occasion of a significant REAL event - religious, like Easter and Christmas, or historical, like Columbus Day and the 4th of July. Man invented this concept of the millenium. None of us were alive 999 years ago, so can this really mean anything to us individually?
Second of all, does anyone know why we have a leap year? Because the earth doesn't complete a full revolution around the sun until about 6 hours AFTER we celebrate the New Year. This adds up every 4 years. So the Year 2000 doesn't actually come until midnight the next day. But people seem to ignore this anyway. Who wants to celebrate at 6 am in the morning? Or 12pm or 6pm the next day? Again, it's a social celebration. And besides, leap years are fun:-)
In conclusion, what are we really doing by celebrating this millenium? Giving terrorists a venue to flex their genocidalistic muscle? Or giving ourselves an excuse to make resolutions and start out with a "new year"? I'm sorry if this post sounds pessimistic, and takes some of the steam out of your New Year/Century/Millenium's celebration, but don't worry - the other half of me will be celebrating with the rest of you:-)
Yes, I have the techno version - it's awesome. I listen to it in my car, on the way to work, when I go clubbing, at my nephew's birthday party, at the office christmas party - its uses are endless:-)
The first link I gave isn't just a picture, it is an actual article, just a scanned picture of the article. The article itself it from Maximum PC, which is a very good magazine in my eyes.
I still can't believe that anyone in their right mind would think that there's any connection to video games and violence. Video game review T. Liam McDonald had some interesting words about this subject, and he mentions the shootings at Columbine, and also mentions Carl Grossman. I think it's a very good article, and that he makes some very good points.
http://www.zophar.net/things/doomatic.jpg
ZD-Net also put up a story on the subject: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2399 619,00.html?chkpt=zdnnstop
Well, i'm not terribly surprised by this, and I don't think that too many people should be - this was pretty much inevitable. With the current rate that science is going at, and with enourmous interest in bio-chemistry (I know a LOT of bio-chem majors here at school) today, i'm not surprised. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if tommorrow they annouced that they could make a 6-toed sloth in the lab.
But anyway, imagine the possibilities...with genetic manipulation, scientists could do just about anything. They could 'make' a virus whose's only goal is to destroy some other kind of virus (like AIDS, for example). On the other side of the coin, this could open up a whole new chapter in bio-chemical warfare by some malicious scientists. When this becomes readily available, let's hope that humanity will have matured enough to the point where this kind of technology won't be used with evil intent.
But enough about the bad aspects of it. As for the ethics if it, I don't think there's anything wrong with creating some bacteria by mixing some chemicals in a lab. If we start creating humans though....
I'm reposting this so that hopefully it'll get seen a little better. Besides, it's not completely a direct response, mostly a discussion of some questions that come up about time travel. I made an addition also.
"For those interested it is the easiest way of getting time travel. One day you come home and find all the plans for a time machine - you build it and then return to leave the plans for yourself (the exact pieces of paper)"
Ok, first of all, I believe that this can't happen, because, quite frankly, knowledge can't create knowledge. You can't say that we learned time travel because our future selves told how to do it. How did they learn it? Let's say that they discovered it, say around 2500, and then went back in time and gave the blueprints to us, in 1999. This would certainly change what is the present for the time travelers (2500), since they had time travel capabilities since 1999, and didn't need to discover it in 2500. By giving us the blueprints, they affected their timeline, begining in 1999, all the way up to their present (2500).
But that's one possibility. If there is only 1 universe (no parallel universes), and our changing of the past affects the future, then we have serious problems. Many, many paradoxs can arise, such as the going-back-in-time-and-shooting-myself paradox that everyone loves.
Richard Feynman addressed this issue once by implying that one simply cannot change the past. The example he gives is of a time travler (or chrononaut? is that a word) who goes back 5 years in time and attemps to shoot her past self. However, she misses the heart, and the bullet hits her younger self in the shoulder. Why did she miss? Because her aim was affected by her shoulder - the time traveler was shot in the shoulder 5 years ago.
The other option is that there are parallel universes, and that possibly they are spawned for every possible action in the universe at any given time. If this were the case, and you went back in time and shot yourself, you simply would be dead in THAT universe. You're still alive and well in your own, even when you returned to your own time.
Just one more issue to address - one may say, "Hey, if you go back in time, say to when you were 10 (and you are 20), then aren't there two of you in the same universe? If you met your past self, wouldn't you faint or destroy the universe like in Back to the Future 2?" Well, i'd have to say no, you probably'd no neither. I don't think anything would happen, except for the fact that the present you would be staring into a 10 year young mirror. Also, keep in mind, you can't be in 2 places at once. Even as you are there, staring at your younger self, you are NOT where should should be (in the future). You are present in the past, yet missing in the future, even for only a split second, so it evens out. And remember, time is all relative (I hate time). So don't worry that your extra mass (that is in the universe at the time you're visiting your younger self) is going to cause a sudden cosmic crunch:-)
Btw, the above assuptions (the 20 year-old visiting his 10 year-old self) are made with the assumption that we're dealing with 1 universe here, as opposed to parallel universes.
"For those interested it is the easiest way of getting time travel. One day you come home and find all the plans for a time machine - you build it and then return to leave the plans for yourself (the exact pieces of paper)"
Ok, first of all, I believe that this can't happen, because, quite frankly, knowledge can't create knowledge. You can't say that we learned time travel because our future selves told how to do it. How did they learn it? Let's say that they discovered it, around 2500, and then went back in time and gave the blueprints to us, in 1999. This would certainly change what is the present for the time travelers (2500), since they had time travel capabilities since 1999, and didn't need to discover it in 2500. By giving us the blueprints, they affected their timeline, begining in 1999, all the way up to their present (2500).
But that's one possibility. If there is only 1 universe (no parallel universes), and our changing of the past affects the future, then we have serious problems. Many, many paradoxs can arise, such as the going-back-in-time-and-shooting-myself paradox that everyone loves.
Richard Feynman addressed this issue once by implying that one simply cannot change the past. The example he gives is of a time travler (or chrononaut? is that a word) who goes back 5 years in time and attemps to shoot her past self. However, she misses the heart, and the bullet hits her younger self in the shoulder. Why did she miss? Because her aim was affected by her shoulder - the time traveler was shot in the shoulder 5 years ago.
The other option is that there are parallel universes, and that they are spawned for every possible action in the universe at any given time. If this were the case, and you went back in time and shot yourself, you simply would be dead in THAT universe. You're still alive and well in your own, even when you returned to your own time.
Just one more issue to address - one may say, "Hey, let's say that you are 20, and you go back in time to when you were 10, then aren't there two of you in the same universe? If you met your past self, wouldn't you faint or destroy the universe like in Back to the Future 2?" Well, i'd have to say no. You wouldn't faint, nor would you destroy the universe. I don't think anything would happen, except for the fact that the 20-year-old you would be staring into a 10 year young mirror. Also, keep in mind, you can't be in 2 places at once. Even as you are there, staring at your younger self, you are NOT where should should be (in the future). You are present in the past, yet missing in the future, even for only a split second, so it evens out. And remember, time is all relative (I hate time). So don't worry that your extra mass (that is in the universe at the time you're visiting your younger self) isn't going to cause a sudden cosmic crunch:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, technically, you're right, dark energy doesn't have mass. However, it should have negative mass (considering that regular energy does have mass). This is what makes dark enery (which is a misleading term I think)and dark matter quite opposite. If the universe if full of dark matter (which emits an attractive force), then that means that if there is enough, the universe may be closed because there is enough matter to slow down the expansion of the universe, reverse it, and cause collapse (due to the gravitational attraction between all of the matter of the universe to each other).
:-)
However, if there is enough negative ("dark") energy in the universe, which emits a repulsive force (that INCREASES, or accelerates over distance, which is opposite of the gravitational force, which decreases over distance - I believe that's what Einstein was getting at with the cosmological constant), than the universe 's expansion is accelerating, which in my mind would imply an open universe. I'm not sure how one could have a universe that has accelerating expansion, yet remain closed or flat. I apologize if any of the above is incorrect, I haven't taken a physics class in a long time
Also, according to current theories of relativity, nothing can be accelerated faster than the speed of light.
Well, if you want to figure out the radius yourself, it's defined as R=2GM/c^2, where R is the Schwarzschild Radius, G is the Gravitational Constant, M is the mass, and c is the speed of light (in this case squared)
Also, isn't the visible size of the universe something like 10^26 km (do I have the right units?)?
Anyway, I doubt that our universe is a black hole, simply because, well, what at the center of a black hole? A singularity. And what happens to all objects that are inside of the black hole? They head straight for the singularity. An object would have to travel superluminous speeds to overcome this difficulty. It APPEARS that the universe is expanding, and that most of the galaxies are moving away from each other, and I doubt that they are traveling faster than light (or else we probably wouldn't be able to see them).
Well, I know that a while back, some company couldn't get the right (or permission) to use Sean Connory's likeness for some game (another CCG?), so they had to use a shadow that vaguely looked like him. I'm not sure if it was illegal for them to use his likeness without his permission, or if they did it just to be nice. Also, I'm not sure what the laws in Japan. 97 million is pretty steep though, but if it's a company that has a lot of money, I guess you try to take it to the bank. I wouldn't want to see him win either, but it appears inevitable. I guess a fictional character with the same last name as you and who bends spoons (allegedly) like you counts as a likeness.... any thoughts though?
First of all, this isn't the "millenium" (whatever that is anyway) - that arrives in 2001. Even Arthur C. Clarke named his book "2001" because he had the insight to know that the millenium doesn't start until 2001. Our needless celebration means nothing outside of earth anyway. So why bother? Because it's a social celebration. Because we arbitrarily decide that we are going to have a huge celebration on a certain date. If we are going to do that, maybe we should do it more often, and make up holidays left and right. At least most holidays mark the occasion of a significant REAL event - religious, like Easter and Christmas, or historical, like Columbus Day and the 4th of July. Man invented this concept of the millenium. None of us were alive 999 years ago, so can this really mean anything to us individually?
Second of all, does anyone know why we have a leap year? Because the earth doesn't complete a full revolution around the sun until about 6 hours AFTER we celebrate the New Year. This adds up every 4 years. So the Year 2000 doesn't actually come until midnight the next day. But people seem to ignore this anyway. Who wants to celebrate at 6 am in the morning? Or 12pm or 6pm the next day? Again, it's a social celebration. And besides, leap years are fun :-)
In conclusion, what are we really doing by celebrating this millenium? Giving terrorists a venue to flex their genocidalistic muscle? Or giving ourselves an excuse to make resolutions and start out with a "new year"? I'm sorry if this post sounds pessimistic, and takes some of the steam out of your New Year/Century/Millenium's celebration, but don't worry - the other half of me will be celebrating with the rest of you :-)
Happy New Year!
http://www.zophar.net/things/doomatic.jpg
ZD-Net also put up a story on the subject: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2399 619,00.html?chkpt=zdnnstop
Will this ever go away?
But anyway, imagine the possibilities...with genetic manipulation, scientists could do just about anything. They could 'make' a virus whose's only goal is to destroy some other kind of virus (like AIDS, for example). On the other side of the coin, this could open up a whole new chapter in bio-chemical warfare by some malicious scientists. When this becomes readily available, let's hope that humanity will have matured enough to the point where this kind of technology won't be used with evil intent.
But enough about the bad aspects of it. As for the ethics if it, I don't think there's anything wrong with creating some bacteria by mixing some chemicals in a lab. If we start creating humans though....
"For those interested it is the easiest way of getting time travel. One day you come home and find all the plans for a time machine - you build it and then return to leave the plans for yourself (the exact pieces of paper)"
Ok, first of all, I believe that this can't happen, because, quite frankly, knowledge can't create knowledge. You can't say that we learned time travel because our future selves told how to do it. How did they learn it? Let's say that they discovered it, say around 2500, and then went back in time and gave the blueprints to us, in 1999. This would certainly change what is the present for the time travelers (2500), since they had time travel capabilities since 1999, and didn't need to discover it in 2500. By giving us the blueprints, they affected their timeline, begining in 1999, all the way up to their present (2500).
But that's one possibility. If there is only 1 universe (no parallel universes), and our changing of the past affects the future, then we have serious problems. Many, many paradoxs can arise, such as the going-back-in-time-and-shooting-myself paradox that everyone loves.
Richard Feynman addressed this issue once by implying that one simply cannot change the past. The example he gives is of a time travler (or chrononaut? is that a word) who goes back 5 years in time and attemps to shoot her past self. However, she misses the heart, and the bullet hits her younger self in the shoulder. Why did she miss? Because her aim was affected by her shoulder - the time traveler was shot in the shoulder 5 years ago.
The other option is that there are parallel universes, and that possibly they are spawned for every possible action in the universe at any given time. If this were the case, and you went back in time and shot yourself, you simply would be dead in THAT universe. You're still alive and well in your own, even when you returned to your own time.
Just one more issue to address - one may say, "Hey, if you go back in time, say to when you were 10 (and you are 20), then aren't there two of you in the same universe? If you met your past self, wouldn't you faint or destroy the universe like in Back to the Future 2?" Well, i'd have to say no, you probably'd no neither. I don't think anything would happen, except for the fact that the present you would be staring into a 10 year young mirror. Also, keep in mind, you can't be in 2 places at once. Even as you are there, staring at your younger self, you are NOT where should should be (in the future). You are present in the past, yet missing in the future, even for only a split second, so it evens out. And remember, time is all relative (I hate time). So don't worry that your extra mass (that is in the universe at the time you're visiting your younger self) is going to cause a sudden cosmic crunch :-)
Btw, the above assuptions (the 20 year-old visiting his 10 year-old self) are made with the assumption that we're dealing with 1 universe here, as opposed to parallel universes.
Ok, first of all, I believe that this can't happen, because, quite frankly, knowledge can't create knowledge. You can't say that we learned time travel because our future selves told how to do it. How did they learn it? Let's say that they discovered it, around 2500, and then went back in time and gave the blueprints to us, in 1999. This would certainly change what is the present for the time travelers (2500), since they had time travel capabilities since 1999, and didn't need to discover it in 2500. By giving us the blueprints, they affected their timeline, begining in 1999, all the way up to their present (2500).
But that's one possibility. If there is only 1 universe (no parallel universes), and our changing of the past affects the future, then we have serious problems. Many, many paradoxs can arise, such as the going-back-in-time-and-shooting-myself paradox that everyone loves.
Richard Feynman addressed this issue once by implying that one simply cannot change the past. The example he gives is of a time travler (or chrononaut? is that a word) who goes back 5 years in time and attemps to shoot her past self. However, she misses the heart, and the bullet hits her younger self in the shoulder. Why did she miss? Because her aim was affected by her shoulder - the time traveler was shot in the shoulder 5 years ago.
The other option is that there are parallel universes, and that they are spawned for every possible action in the universe at any given time. If this were the case, and you went back in time and shot yourself, you simply would be dead in THAT universe. You're still alive and well in your own, even when you returned to your own time.
Just one more issue to address - one may say, "Hey, let's say that you are 20, and you go back in time to when you were 10, then aren't there two of you in the same universe? If you met your past self, wouldn't you faint or destroy the universe like in Back to the Future 2?" Well, i'd have to say no. You wouldn't faint, nor would you destroy the universe. I don't think anything would happen, except for the fact that the 20-year-old you would be staring into a 10 year young mirror. Also, keep in mind, you can't be in 2 places at once. Even as you are there, staring at your younger self, you are NOT where should should be (in the future). You are present in the past, yet missing in the future, even for only a split second, so it evens out. And remember, time is all relative (I hate time). So don't worry that your extra mass (that is in the universe at the time you're visiting your younger self) isn't going to cause a sudden cosmic crunch :-)