Space, and possible proof.

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 02:50:49 PM

This is what I am trying to say is incorrect. If the mass is spread thin enough, your "gravity" would be a quantifiable and finite amount.

Do you have anything to support your assertion? AFAIK, any reasonable mass configuration (avoiding infinite thinness or lightness)  would give an infinite mass.

Infinate mass, yes. Infinate gravity, no.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 24, 2007, 02:59:11 PM

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 02:50:49 PM

This is what I am trying to say is incorrect. If the mass is spread thin enough, your "gravity" would be a quantifiable and finite amount.

Do you have anything to support your assertion? AFAIK, any reasonable mass configuration (avoiding infinite thinness or lightness)  would give an infinite mass.

Infinate mass, yes. Infinate gravity, no.

How so?

How do you mean 'stretched thin enough'? It would have to be infinitely thin, which we know it isn't. Or have I misunderstood your point?

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

Nope. The effect is additive, and infinitely so. You can consider the gravity to be the infinite sum of equally powerful concentric rings, growing in width as the distance increases.

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:32:10 PM

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

Nope. The effect is additive, and infinitely so. You can consider the gravity to be the infinite sum of equally powerful concentric rings, growing in width as the distance increases.

AAAA I'm falling into the sun, distance is no longer a critical part of the gravity equation!!

Quote from: Gulliver on July 24, 2007, 03:36:25 PM

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:32:10 PM

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

Nope. The effect is additive, and infinitely so. You can consider the gravity to be the infinite sum of equally powerful concentric rings, growing in width as the distance increases.

AAAA I'm falling into the sun, distance is no longer a critical part of the gravity equation!!

We could only hope. But seriously, where has any REer said that distance is no longer a critical part of gravity equation?

You do realize that narcberry is just a troll... right? 

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 24, 2007, 03:36:25 PM

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:32:10 PM

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

Nope. The effect is additive, and infinitely so. You can consider the gravity to be the infinite sum of equally powerful concentric rings, growing in width as the distance increases.

AAAA I'm falling into the sun, distance is no longer a critical part of the gravity equation!!

We could only hope. But seriously, where has any REer said that distance is no longer a critical part of gravity equation?

Let's try it this way for you smart fellers.


Why does the universe not collapse in on itself?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 24, 2007, 03:52:59 PM

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 24, 2007, 03:36:25 PM

Quote from: narcberry on July 24, 2007, 03:32:10 PM

"gravity" is a function of mass and distance. It's that crazy distance part of the equation that allows an infinite amount of mass to only exert a finite amount of force.

And no, the earth would not need to be infinitely thin.

Nope. The effect is additive, and infinitely so. You can consider the gravity to be the infinite sum of equally powerful concentric rings, growing in width as the distance increases.

AAAA I'm falling into the sun, distance is no longer a critical part of the gravity equation!!

We could only hope. But seriously, where has any REer said that distance is no longer a critical part of gravity equation?

Let's try it this way for you smart fellers.


Why does the universe not collapse in on itself?

No, thanks! We'll stick with the question I posed to you and that you haven't answered.

For answer to your question, see the Big Crunch theory. Where gravity will pull the universe towards my massive head.

"If the gravitational attraction of all the matter within the observable horizon were high enough, the expansion of the universe would slow, and then reverse eventually. The universe would then contract, with about the same duration as the expansion. Eventually, all matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity.

However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has—to considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever. Although some scientists have contested this theory,[1] most cosmologists have considered the evidence of an accelerating universe to be conclusive since 2002."

I was going to ask for what the catalyst would be, but seeing as it's unlikely, I guess it won't matter.

I think I read that article. Where is it from?

Wikipedia.

Why does the universe not collapse in on itself?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but;

a) The massive force of the big bang is still forcing it outwards, (Look up the 'Bang Crunch' Theory).

b) The 'Universe' is a term given to all bodies in space, and is not one large object. There is more 'Space' than planets, stars etc.

c) We have no proof, that the Universe is infinite.

The Wiki? Hmm, probably that then.

In all honesty it may simply be that the force of the big bang has still got the power to accelerate more than graivity can pull it back. We don't know yet.

 

It's best if you not take this site too seriously.

Wikipedia.

Then it can't be true.

j/k

Quote from: laurie.gg on July 25, 2007, 07:19:26 AM

It's best if you not take this site too seriously.

It's much more fun that way.

The Wiki? Hmm, probably that then.

In all honesty it may simply be that the force of the big bang has still got the power to accelerate more than graivity can pull it back. We don't know yet.

I'm not sure that the big bang still has "force" behind it, so I don't think that it can cause the universe to accelerate. It could (and is) still expand, but it would be decelerating.

IMO, some of the new theories are just different ways that scientists try to fit the data in, because they don't "feel" very good to me. (IE string theory, dark energy, etc.) I hope that some time from now, they'll come to a nice, pretty theory which explains much more, just like Newton did with his gravity (it explained almost everything in astronomy known to them, and was fairly simple for the time).

I'm not sure that the big bang still has "force" behind it, so I don't think that it can cause the universe to accelerate. It could (and is) still expand, but it would be decelerating.

IMO, some of the new theories are just different ways that scientists try to fit the data in, because they don't "feel" very good to me. (IE string theory, dark energy, etc.) I hope that some time from now, they'll come to a nice, pretty theory which explains much more, just like Newton did with his gravity (it explained almost everything in astronomy known to them, and was fairly simple for the time).

And so what do you say to the quote that it is accelerating? There is nothing in space to slow the expansion other than gravitation which doesn't seem to be doing much.

Quote from: andrews on July 25, 2007, 01:32:21 PM

I'm not sure that the big bang still has "force" behind it, so I don't think that it can cause the universe to accelerate. It could (and is) still expand, but it would be decelerating.

IMO, some of the new theories are just different ways that scientists try to fit the data in, because they don't "feel" very good to me. (IE string theory, dark energy, etc.) I hope that some time from now, they'll come to a nice, pretty theory which explains much more, just like Newton did with his gravity (it explained almost everything in astronomy known to them, and was fairly simple for the time).

And so what do you say to the quote that it is accelerating? There is nothing in space to slow the expansion other than gravitation which doesn't seem to be doing much.

In order to accelerate, a force must be present. The only force present (that physicists are sure of) is gravity, so in theory it should be decelerating. Of course this is using the classical model of the universe, and the data is suggesting that this model cannot be applied to the entire universe.

Physicists are suggesting things like dark matter and dark energy (although they don't know what exactly it could be) which somehow causes the universe to accelerate (in the expansion direction).

Big bang theory gets fucking complicated when you dig into it. Its worse than the philosophy I work with.

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 25, 2007, 11:07:40 AM

Quote from: laurie.gg on July 25, 2007, 07:19:26 AM

It's best if you not take this site too seriously.

It's much more fun that way.

Exactly.