Quake3World

Old?

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/3661 ... ken_Video_

there's a 10 second or so bit with numa numa at the beginning...at first i thought hte whole video was going to be a joke after that, but its not...

talks about the hubble ultra deep field pic being the most important image ever taken by man...

:icon14:

humbling to say the least. were so nothing in the universe.

I always thought it was so fucking pompous to say that humans could be the pinnacle of God's creation, that we're the only intelligent life form in the entire mother fucking universe.

Sheesh.

Very decent analogy of how small our spot is.

Should be posted in the void thread.

lol my head

Ganemi wrote:I always thought it was so fucking pompous to say that humans could be the pinnacle of God's creation, that we're the only intelligent life form in the entire mother fucking universe.

Sheesh.

w3rd

ForM wrote:
Should be posted in the void thread.

Done.

and to think, all those galaxies are only the ones within a 13 billion light year radius maximum

i remember learning that the universe was about 14-15 billion light years in radius, yet this says it's 78 billion diameter...

whenever something is bad in my life i always remember that we are too small to matter

[xeno]Julios wrote:i remember learning that the universe was about 14-15 billion light years in radius, yet this says it's 78 billion diameter...

me too , as a matter of fact I had made a thread about distances and speed of light and there was alot of numbers but they all fell around the 10-14 bil radius mark

I barely wrapped my head around that, time to watch Borat.

Wrap your head around this article about parallel universes, by MIT guy Max Tegmark:

http://www.homestead.com/WinterSteel/fi ... iverse.pdf

It's an 18 page journal article that will take a bit of time to get through. But I think it's worth it.

In it, he explains four current theories that could explain the nature of the universe (or multiverses), beyond our own. These theories are structured from level I to IV, simplest to more complex (and less testable). When he gets to level IV it becomes completely mind blowing to think about.

[xeno]Julios wrote:i remember learning that the universe was about 14-15 billion light years in radius, yet this says it's 78 billion diameter...

From the article I posted about, he mentions that the light from the farthest universes is 14 billion years old, thus having traveled 14 billion light years in distance. Yet those universe are now nearly 40 billion years from us know, due to the expansion of the universe within that time.

nothing i didnt already know...

mjrpes wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:i remember learning that the universe was about 14-15 billion light years in radius, yet this says it's 78 billion diameter...

From the article I posted about, he mentions that the light from the farthest universes is 14 billion years old, thus having traveled 14 billion light years in distance. Yet those universe are now nearly 40 billion years from us know, due to the expansion of the universe within that time.

yea i find this whole thing quite confusing hehe - expansion and light travel etc...

stocktroll wrote:nothing i didnt already know...

then you are a rarity in the republican party.

mjrpes wrote:Wrap your head around this article about parallel universes, by MIT guy Max Tegmark:

http://www.homestead.com/WinterSteel/fi ... iverse.pdf

It's an 18 page journal article that will take a bit of time to get through. But I think it's worth it.

In it, he explains four current theories that could explain the nature of the universe (or multiverses), beyond our own. These theories are structured from level I to IV, simplest to more complex (and less testable). When he gets to level IV it becomes completely mind blowing to think about.

only 8 pages in but this is a great read. thanks.

tnf wrote:Old?

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/3661 ... ken_Video_

there's a 10 second or so bit with numa numa at the beginning...at first i thought hte whole video was going to be a joke after that, but its not...

talks about the hubble ultra deep field pic being the most important image ever taken by man...

great find, thanks for sharing!

Fascinating video. For me it puts things in perspective.

I wonder what kind of images we could take at the moment with all the improved technology, providing we sent another space telescope up..

I've been a fan of Carl Sagan for years. I really think he explains it much better in his Cosmos series. I remember one episode in particular when he actually crunched some numbers and tried to determine how many worlds there are out there with intelligent life. It was a fairly large number. If you're interested in this, you might want to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos. It's on every Tuesday night on the Discovery Science Channel.

xer0s wrote:I've been a fan of Carl Sagan for years. I really think he explains it much better in his Cosmos series. I remember one episode in particular when he actually crunched some numbers and tried to determine how many worlds there are out there with intelligent life. It was a fairly large number. If you're interested in this, you might want to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos. It's on every Tuesday night on the Discovery Science Channel.

But remember, the number he got by that 'crunching' is by no means undisputable.

No, not at all. But when you can give or take a few billion, and the number is still staggering, its pretty amazing.

Think about all that oil out there...

tnf wrote:Old?

Eh, about 13 billion years old, but I seriously think that number is way too modest.