File[The Scale of the Universe.swf] - (3.38 MB)
[_] [L] The universe is much bigger than we can sense. Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)05:13 No.1375675
See how much of the universe we actually live in?
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] anonymoose 09/17/10(Fri)05:17 No.1375678
Lol no one pronounces Uranus ur uh niss lol
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)05:18 No.1375680
the center of the universe is a stupid empty space, almost all matter exists as a thin expanding
sphere, the distance to the outer reaches of the universe from the center is actually the age of
the universe x light years since the original light at the moment the cosmic egg "cracked" is
still zooming out as the physical edge of the universe, except of course most space is collapsed
outside of the matter-dense areas
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)05:49 No.1375694
>>1375680
Hey, I think I just figured out something...
This sucks!
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)05:56 No.1375699
Where's the Gurren Lagann forms?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:07 No.1375701
Song name?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:09 No.1375702
Nobody has ever actually been to any of this stuff.
Theoretical science: making shit up since 40 BC
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:13 No.1375704
>>1375702
Nobody's been to the Sun! YOU CAN'T PROVE THE SUN EXISTS.
Holy shit, it's called fucking observation. We can detect neutrinos. We can see the limits of the
observable universe. What/if there's anything beyond is projection.
Don't abuse the word "theoretical". Theories have been tested and proven. Describing something as
"a theory" is a phrase that cements the statement, not questions it. Hypothesis = untested,
Theory = tested. Get it right.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:22 No.1375706
>>1375704
So what you're saying is that the luminiferous aether factually existed in its time because
evidence and observation seemed to support the theory, but then became non-existent when the
Michelson-Morley experiment lent support to relativity instead? Stupid nigger.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:28 No.1375709
>>1375706
can't be proven or disproven
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:35 No.1375712
>>1375706
>So what you're saying is that the luminiferous aether factually existed in its time because
evidence and observation seemed to support the theory, but then became non-existent when the
Michelson-Morley experiment lent support to relativity instead?
It was misunderstood observation. You can't say when and where the current level of observation
is mistaken until it is proven. Once it is, THEN you can overlay the new truth over the old truth.
You can't just say "nothing can be true" simply because old truths have been overwritten.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:38 No.1375714
>>1375712
In which way is something that you can, looking at history, reasonably expect to be overwritten
"true"? Face it: science is useful, but not true. Scientific realism fails due to the nature of
science itself.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:48 No.1375716
>>1375714
Semantics, semantics.
"What is currently assumed to be true", if you must have it that way.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:51 No.1375719
>>1375716
More like "what is currently assumed to be the most useful mathematical-linguistic representation
of observations so far" because you really shouldn't call things that are fundamentally contrived
(like theoretical objects) and liable to change "truths".
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)06:52 No.1375720
S... Song name? :(
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)07:00 No.1375721
>>1375719
Well, of course. Under such definitions, then yes.
"Truth" is vague, at any rate.
But that's not the point, the point is that this flash fits in with all current data and nothing
contradicts it, so you can't call bullshit just because "we haven't been there".
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)07:09 No.1375727
>>1375721
lol yes I can. This is the current scientific model of the universe, sure. But we don't see
things like neutrinos - just detect a field of some sort, come up with a possible explanation in
the larger context of particle physics and then somebody makes a flash where they're round balls
as is traditional for particles, as if the theoretical representations were as real as cars or
earthworms, when really they are fundamentally a narrative element. As such, I don't feel that I
must agree about their existence on the same level I must agree on the existence of cars or trees
to function, even though I couldn't defend the position in a scientific debate and theoretical
science is currently highly valued by society.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)07:13 No.1375731
>>1375699
I was hoping to see this too.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)08:11 No.1375757
Wow, look at all the stuff that exists beyond our scope of vision! @ 0.0001m
A transistor gate almost as small as DNA.
From a one-dimensional String to formations in space that exceeds the bounds of our perceived
existence.
I've read articles on how our universe could be inside a black hole...
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)08:24 No.1375762
anyone read hawking's new book?
this is just one of maybe an infinite number of universes
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)08:25 No.1375763
>>1375757
And not only that: time (throughout space) goes beyond slowing down and speeding up. There are
ideas out there that time may eventually come to a stop and go in reverse.
The very nature of what we consider to be constant and certain is put into question.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)08:46 No.1375768
so how big is god? can't find him in this superficial nonsense.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)09:48 No.1375801
>>1375762
now he's just pulling stuff out of his ass.
oh wait, I mean his chair is.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)09:57 No.1375809
>>1375768
Since there is no common agreement on what god IS: (his makeup & attributes, the extent of
influence, or evidence how/where/if it exists), it is impossible to apply the scientific method
using Natural sciences to something which has no corporeal definition or evidence. If we can't
define the nature of god, how will we know what to look for?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)10:03 No.1375813
>>1375768
Okay, you see this flash?
That's how big God is in this flash.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)10:58 No.1375834
You see, thats the brilliant thing about science. It keeps checking to make sure it is still
right, and when it isn't, it corrects itself. "Making up shit" is belief and faith territory, not
science, kthx.
>> [_] [nzfailfag]kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 09/17/10(Fri)11:03 No.1375837
>>1375768
perhaps he is outside out scope of vision >_>
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)11:19 No.1375840
>>1375834
Oh, so science just happens without anybody thinking it up? And regardless of how old "facts" are
constantly abandoned, the current ones are 100% true? As a science-minded person I'm constantly
ashamed by sharing an identifier with your simple kind.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)11:27 No.1375843
Haha omg talking about how big God is.. Really? xD
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)12:05 No.1375856
ouch
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)12:19 No.1375866
this is fucking amazing. host this on the 4chon servers and post it on the front page!
fuck religion
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)12:20 No.1375867
>>1375866
>implying this has anything to do with religion
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)12:25 No.1375870
>>1375867
<religion> god is in the sky looking down on you and he will send to to a pit of fire for all
enternity if you dont give US money and do what WE say.
The Scale of the Universe.swf
<science> totaly called you out bro, my dad totaly owns a dealership
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)12:40 No.1375874
The existence of the Planck Length always amuses me. It feels very much like we're running into
the lower bounds of precision on some floating point number in a big computer simulation.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)13:45 No.1375915
>>1375763
I would like to point out that saying time through out space makes no sense.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)14:09 No.1375921
>>1375762
He's been saying that for decades. How is that news? hypothetical shows from the 60's were
quoting him on it.
Anyways, I am amazed that something like this would be on Newgrounds. The creator should submit
it to NASA for finalization...then he can post the link here.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)14:52 No.1375939
Settle down, Beavis. Can't we just look at the pretty flash animation? if you really care,
discuss it on /sci/
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)15:12 No.1375955
>>1375874
Yeah. what happens when we cut that in half?
>> [_] Ironmind !iUZ4YQ8oZ. 09/17/10(Fri)15:57 No.1375992
>>1375955
It will be similar to division by 0. In other words, NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS!
>> [_] Sig !!DBI97MeOzwZ 09/17/10(Fri)16:39 No.1376007
>>1375762
New book? That shit is old, I knew it when I was like 16 years old...
>> [_] Anonymous 09/17/10(Fri)16:50 No.1376011
oh god
this thread
