Much as I love Google for many things, I can no longer believe in investing time into its products - except for a handful. These few are Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Android, and of course Search. After Wave, Buzz, Picasa, Google Health, Orkut, and Google Reader, I finally realized that Google is not committed to its products. It builds potentially cool stuff, and then ignores the hell out of them. I am not interested in using the products of a company that essentially tells its users to go fuck themselves.
Even with Google+, I'm receiving signals that the company is losing interest - which is sad, because I have far better conversations with people on G+ than on Facebook. I have realized now that the future lies with companies who make dedicated products. This is the reason for example, why I use LastPass instead of the Google Chrome password manager. I never know if a day will come when Google suddenly decides to wrap up its password functionality saying "not enough users" or whatever.
I no longer have faith in ANY of the conglomerates offering products all over the board. None of them have the interest or commitment to keep working on them. I am now a firm believer in "Do ONE thing and do it DAMN well".
I think this depends on the nature of space itself. Are we just objects sitting on top of space, or are we composed of space in the same way that the the surface of a balloon is? If we look at your model, it looks as if you're postulating a kind of "friction" between objects and space. That's why the discs with springs will only move further apart a little bit. If the rubber sheet was completely smooth, there would never be any increase in distance whatsoever since they'll just "slip" over it.
If there is no friction, then it doesn't matter even if there is acceleration. Like if it was a sheet of ice instead of rubber, everything would just sort of slide around. What is this friction, how do we measure it, what causes it...? I'm not really aware of such a mathematical quantity. For these reasons I'm just assuming that we're more than just objects in space. We are space.
And of course I could be wrong. I have no idea really...
Well, in a spring case the attraction increases with distance (upto a point of course). But I think if the rubber sheet was stretching and pulling the two balls along with it (balls are 3-D objects, so to make it a better analogy we should perhaps be talking about infinitely thin disks sitting on the rubber sheet) then the spring will eventually stretch, stretch and snap...
In this case, yes the line is paint and is sitting on the surface of the balloon. It's an imperfect analogy. But we're not just objects "on" space. We are space in addition to bending/warping it or whatever. So while all objects will increase in size, I don't think there's any data to indicate that the fundamental constants will change. So in a simplistic model if we look at the force of attraction between a nucleus and an electron via the inverse square law of electromagnetism, the increased distance will eventually reduce the force between the two causing the electrons to slip away. And the nucleus itself will burst apart.
Of course it could also be that I understand none of this and that I'm talking off the top of my head:) . In fact, that is most likely the case!
In this case, you're not pulling the ruler. You're stretching the very fabric of reality itself. The ruler becoming longer is just a side effect. Think of it as a line on a balloon. When you blow air into the balloon, you're not pulling the line itself. But because the balloon is becoming larger, the line just happens to increase in length.
The force should keep decreasing as the distance increases regardless of acceleration. I mean, space expansion is accelerating, but I don't think that should make a difference to the rip...
The attraction is a function of distance - the inverse square or whatever is the equivalent in the quantum world. The strong force in particular works only when the nucleus is tightly bound. Any relaxation in the distances should destabilize the whole thing. So yeah, we will eventually get ripped open. Even atom in our substance will disintegrate.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always c. It doesn't matter if you're moving at 0.9c. If you shine a torch of light ahead of you, it will still move at speed "c".
What is meant here however is that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand. So say we have two ends of a ruler 1 meter apart. After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was. There is no theoretical limit to how fast this can happen. It can be greater than c.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
Wormholes ok, they at least have a theoretical framework in modern science. Warp drives...well if you're talking about moving a space bubble relative to space itself. But since when did "hyperspace" become even a remotely scientific theory?
Tell that to the photons reaching us from the event for whom it literally just happened. There's no such thing as an absolute time scale. Thank you special theory of relativity!
Well, I don't know if other people are conscious. I only know that I am. And there's no reason for me to think I''m not a machine. I'm a biological robot after all...
Or did no one think of that? Reminds me of some other science paper which said that no machine can ever be conscious. As if somehow we are not machines.
But what is the state interest in this? Unless there is just one car manufacturer who has a monopoly on all cars, it's the dealer's decision to sell cars from any particular manufacturer. If they don't like the terms, no one is forcing them to sell cars....
I don't think anyone has a god given right to be a dealer and sell someone else's cars. Sure, it sucks to be a dealer who has no choice but to agree to a car manufacturer's conditions...but so what? Life is tough...
I'm not sure why this "pressure" that car manufacturers put on dealers is a bad thing. They manufacture the product, and if they have the leverage to dictate how it will be sold, good for them. I'm not sure what compelling state interest is served by artificially restricting the way manufacturers can sell their cars.
I'm not hypothesizing about whether or not or how it came from nothing. All I'm pointing out is the illogicality of speaking of causation of an even that gave birth to time.
At some point it becomes illogical to ask "what caused it" or "what comes before". Both these questions postulate the prior existence of time. If time itself came into being, then asking "what caused this" or "what happened before this" is meaningless since both questions imply a time based causation which could not have happened in the absence of time itself.
It's comforting because it means you're important. If there is a god who cares enough (either way) to send you to hell if you're bad and reward you if you're good, then you're not someone insignificant...you're a person worthy of god's attention. Otherwise god would just say "yeah, whatever...hell, heaven...I don't give a shit!" Feeds beautifully into our innate narcissism. If you go to hell, you're a badass gangsta worthy of the company of Lucifer himself.
It bring out the inner masochist in us. We gain pleasure from being crapped on and punished. Because even that way we're not being ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Much as I love Google for many things, I can no longer believe in investing time into its products - except for a handful. These few are Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Android, and of course Search. After Wave, Buzz, Picasa, Google Health, Orkut, and Google Reader, I finally realized that Google is not committed to its products. It builds potentially cool stuff, and then ignores the hell out of them. I am not interested in using the products of a company that essentially tells its users to go fuck themselves.
Even with Google+, I'm receiving signals that the company is losing interest - which is sad, because I have far better conversations with people on G+ than on Facebook. I have realized now that the future lies with companies who make dedicated products. This is the reason for example, why I use LastPass instead of the Google Chrome password manager. I never know if a day will come when Google suddenly decides to wrap up its password functionality saying "not enough users" or whatever.
I no longer have faith in ANY of the conglomerates offering products all over the board. None of them have the interest or commitment to keep working on them. I am now a firm believer in "Do ONE thing and do it DAMN well".
I think this depends on the nature of space itself. Are we just objects sitting on top of space, or are we composed of space in the same way that the the surface of a balloon is? If we look at your model, it looks as if you're postulating a kind of "friction" between objects and space. That's why the discs with springs will only move further apart a little bit. If the rubber sheet was completely smooth, there would never be any increase in distance whatsoever since they'll just "slip" over it.
If there is no friction, then it doesn't matter even if there is acceleration. Like if it was a sheet of ice instead of rubber, everything would just sort of slide around. What is this friction, how do we measure it, what causes it...? I'm not really aware of such a mathematical quantity. For these reasons I'm just assuming that we're more than just objects in space. We are space.
And of course I could be wrong. I have no idea really...
Well, in a spring case the attraction increases with distance (upto a point of course). But I think if the rubber sheet was stretching and pulling the two balls along with it (balls are 3-D objects, so to make it a better analogy we should perhaps be talking about infinitely thin disks sitting on the rubber sheet) then the spring will eventually stretch, stretch and snap...
In this case, yes the line is paint and is sitting on the surface of the balloon. It's an imperfect analogy. But we're not just objects "on" space. We are space in addition to bending/warping it or whatever. So while all objects will increase in size, I don't think there's any data to indicate that the fundamental constants will change. So in a simplistic model if we look at the force of attraction between a nucleus and an electron via the inverse square law of electromagnetism, the increased distance will eventually reduce the force between the two causing the electrons to slip away. And the nucleus itself will burst apart.
Of course it could also be that I understand none of this and that I'm talking off the top of my head :) . In fact, that is most likely the case!
In this case, you're not pulling the ruler. You're stretching the very fabric of reality itself. The ruler becoming longer is just a side effect. Think of it as a line on a balloon. When you blow air into the balloon, you're not pulling the line itself. But because the balloon is becoming larger, the line just happens to increase in length.
The force should keep decreasing as the distance increases regardless of acceleration. I mean, space expansion is accelerating, but I don't think that should make a difference to the rip...
I thought hyperspace was supposed to be a fictional alternate dimension ala Asimov. What has that got to do with the bending of spacetime by objects?
The attraction is a function of distance - the inverse square or whatever is the equivalent in the quantum world. The strong force in particular works only when the nucleus is tightly bound. Any relaxation in the distances should destabilize the whole thing. So yeah, we will eventually get ripped open. Even atom in our substance will disintegrate.
Space itself is expanding and there is no limit to how fast that can happen. It can be at 1000 times the value of c if necessary.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always c. It doesn't matter if you're moving at 0.9c. If you shine a torch of light ahead of you, it will still move at speed "c".
What is meant here however is that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand. So say we have two ends of a ruler 1 meter apart. After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was. There is no theoretical limit to how fast this can happen. It can be greater than c.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
Wormholes ok, they at least have a theoretical framework in modern science. Warp drives...well if you're talking about moving a space bubble relative to space itself. But since when did "hyperspace" become even a remotely scientific theory?
Tell that to the photons reaching us from the event for whom it literally just happened. There's no such thing as an absolute time scale. Thank you special theory of relativity!
I'm a very happy product...
Well, I don't know if other people are conscious. I only know that I am. And there's no reason for me to think I''m not a machine. I'm a biological robot after all...
Or did no one think of that? Reminds me of some other science paper which said that no machine can ever be conscious. As if somehow we are not machines.
So dumb...
How is the brain not a computer? Pfft...ridiculous conclusions.
But what is the state interest in this? Unless there is just one car manufacturer who has a monopoly on all cars, it's the dealer's decision to sell cars from any particular manufacturer. If they don't like the terms, no one is forcing them to sell cars....
I don't think anyone has a god given right to be a dealer and sell someone else's cars. Sure, it sucks to be a dealer who has no choice but to agree to a car manufacturer's conditions...but so what? Life is tough...
I'm not sure why this "pressure" that car manufacturers put on dealers is a bad thing. They manufacture the product, and if they have the leverage to dictate how it will be sold, good for them. I'm not sure what compelling state interest is served by artificially restricting the way manufacturers can sell their cars.
I'm not hypothesizing about whether or not or how it came from nothing. All I'm pointing out is the illogicality of speaking of causation of an even that gave birth to time.
I have no idea. I'm merely saying that asking "before" for an event which created time itself is meaningless.
At some point it becomes illogical to ask "what caused it" or "what comes before". Both these questions postulate the prior existence of time. If time itself came into being, then asking "what caused this" or "what happened before this" is meaningless since both questions imply a time based causation which could not have happened in the absence of time itself.
Hoist by his own petard :p
The nature of god? I thought you were only talking about the Christian god...
Zeus has very different rules I can tell you!
It's comforting because it means you're important. If there is a god who cares enough (either way) to send you to hell if you're bad and reward you if you're good, then you're not someone insignificant...you're a person worthy of god's attention. Otherwise god would just say "yeah, whatever...hell, heaven...I don't give a shit!" Feeds beautifully into our innate narcissism. If you go to hell, you're a badass gangsta worthy of the company of Lucifer himself.
It bring out the inner masochist in us. We gain pleasure from being crapped on and punished. Because even that way we're not being ignored.