Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself)
-
Anyone want to offer any ideas around how one would even start to prove or deny this claim?
Can we get some ideas on this one, too?
Nothing.
The Universe was created with a finite size. All the Elements within the Universe are, in fact, shrinking. The relative position of the Elements have not changed, nor the distance between them. But, because of our point of observation, we see the illusion of expansion because we have no concept or awareness of the shrinking and interpret it as "moving away".
We are shrinking because entropy is absorbing our matter - think of it as a balloon deflating (bad choice of imagery, I know. But Hey!)
To clarify, I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything. I'm just looking for some sort of idea of how valid or invalid this claim is, because it seems to me that this would have some extremely profound effects on space-time as we non-physicists think of it if it were true.
-
Pirates of Pendantry!
-
I'm just looking for some sort of idea of how valid or invalid this claim is
How would you tell the difference? Everything you can measure with is shrinking.
-
@Fox said:
I'm just looking for some sort of idea of how valid or invalid this claim is
How would you tell the difference? Everything you can measure with is shrinking.
That's the point of my question.
Granted, it wouldn't really affect our daily lives or anything, but it would have profound implications for how we see the universe.
-
it would have profound implications for how we see the universe
Would it? We literally cannot detect if this is so or not.
-
From the latest What-If, footnote 6:
A black hole with the mass of the observable universe would have a radius of 13.8 billion light-years, and the universe is 13.8 billion years old, which has led some people to say "the Universe is a black hole!" (It's not.)
The link in the footnote goes into the details.
I'm not following this at all.
Anyone want to offer any ideas around how one would even start to prove or deny this claim?
Well...there is all that mass in the observable universe. It seems pretty non-dense when you consider the space within the observable universe. AFAICT, this is a bit of sophistry / pedantic dickweedery that's mistaking not being able to escape because you'd have to go faster than light (Schwarzchild Radius, etc) and begging the question about the observable universe and what it means to be at the edge.
-
It's most common in schools, colleges, and universities, so if you're not in any of those, you probably won't see it. It's aimed at drawing attention to GLBTQ youth suicide rates.
Be warned! Strong winds can make sound!
-
The Universe was created with a finite size. All the Elements within the Universe are, in fact, shrinking. The relative position of the Elements have not changed, nor the distance between them. But, because of our point of observation, we see the illusion of expansion because we have no concept or awareness of the shrinking and interpret it as "moving away".
Do you have any links for this? it is interesting. But in that case why points further from each other are shrinking with a faster speed?
-
As I mentioned up thread, there are no links because it is an idea that occurred to me as a humorous response to a question. However, as a concept, it has consistency. But there is an anomaly that can be explained away in a manner similar to that of "quantum theory".
If everything is shrinking, as I suggest, then "things" would get further away from us at a very local level. I.e. your PC monitor is getting smaller on your desk; your desk is getting smaller in your room; your house is getting smaller in the street etc. So the shrinkage cannot be linear. The "rules" that cause entities in the Universe to shrink must apply recursively and locally. So, a planet will shrink in the same way as the Universe is but it is less noticeable because we (the point of observation) are closer to the effect.
A possible cause of the shrinkage would be the proportional reduction in atomic energy levels. The actual "bits" that make up an atom are not reducing in size themselves (yet), but gap or distance at which the "shell" of electrons are.
-
Yup, it is an interesting idea because we could be like dusts vanishing. But in the big bang theory the distances are increasing at an accelerated speed, it is not linear. So in your big shrunk (or big crush) theory the collapse should also be accelerated (in every direction) to explain the Hubble observation.
In a fixed size model (shrunk or bang), this would be possible only if space has a fractal model (non-euclidean). Remember even though we as observers in the system will not know about the shrinkage, we can see the illusion that more distant galaxies are going away faster than near galaxies.
-
So in your big shrunk (or big crush) theory the collapse should also be accelerated (in every direction) to explain the Hubble observation.
From the perspective of inside the universe, how do you tell the difference? All your measures are shrinking in proportion too.
-
The reason why Yahoo Answers and YouTube comments seem so terrible is not that everyone there is stupid, it's that there's a lot of people there (or to put it in hipster speak "they're too mainstream"). You might say that they're a random sample of the population, as opposed to the heavily filtered samples you get on other websites.
And don't forget, many of those questions come from actual children. Search for stuff like "are unicorns real" or "how do I become a mermaid" and you'll find hundreds of them.
-
-
-
from actual children
butbutbut... what happened to the Internet? Where men are Men, women are Men, and little girls are FBI agents?
-
From the perspective of inside the universe, how do you tell the difference? All your measures are shrinking in proportion too.
One can measure the acceleration (rate of change in speed) in every directions of space by looking at their red-shift.
In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others
made the first measurements of the redshifts and blueshifts of galaxies
beyond the Milky Way.
They initially interpreted these redshifts and blueshifts as due solely
to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation
between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of
galaxies.Lets say I have 3 deflating balls in a straight line at
d
,2d
and3d
distance, all having radius ofr
. If you live on the middle one (at2d
address) and see the other 2 balls are going away with speed ofv
from you, then you could assume that each ball (including your home ball) is shrinking with speed ofv/2
in radius. Now if there were 5 balls at0
,d
,2d
,3d
and4d
and you could see that both balls at0
and4d
are going away with current speed ofv
2>v
that theory breaks; unless space is non-euclidean (e.g. hyperbolic) and you are in the middle (unlikely due to arrogance) or it is a fractal that distorts measurements in weird ways (it is a cheat but I like it). IOW, measurement cannot be in proportion (i.e linear) as you claim.
-
One can measure the acceleration (rate of change in speed) in every directions of space by looking at their red-shift.
But that's not helpful if your yardsticks (for space and time) are shrinking too. The effects will not be observably different from anywhere inside the universe, not unless there's something somewhere which is invariant for all of that. We don't know if that's the case. If there is something, it might be somewhere difficult to access (e.g., on the Planck scale) or unexpected. Yet that's totally speculative.
Note that I don't think that this is what is happening. I think the universe is expanding, and from our perspective it sure looks exactly like that's what is happening. But I know I don't know of any way to prove the shrinking hypothesis wrong.
-
But I know I don't know of any way to prove the shrinking hypothesis wrong.
Neither do I, but just that a fixed-size space (the other part of the big shrink theory) has similar implications to big bang with regard to space curvature; but unlike big bang a simple curvature cannot explain the acceleration. Since I like to think we live in a fractal, I would gladly accept the hypothesis as plausible and welcome.
So lets expand, the universe is fixed size and my standard meter is shrinking, it could explain the observable expansion. I am still 5'9", good my meter is consistent in local space at least. Similar to big bang the acceleration of shrinking can be explained if the space is curved. We are like water droplets spilled on a hot marble stone (the fixed size space), contracting (and vaporizing) and therefore taking distance from other droplets. Fuck, still that does not account for acceleration (radius is fixed making our marble surface act like flat space), so it cannot be a simple marble stone (it is smooth), it has to be warped.
-
So lets expand, the universe is fixed size and my standard meter is shrinking, it could explain the observable expansion.
The way I've heard it (and ignoring the crazy shrinking hypothesis ) space itself is expanding. There simply is more there there than there was before, and it's happening pretty much evenly throughout the entire visible universe (which is “almost flat” to a very good first approximation). Locally, there's more than enough gravity and electromagnetism and stuff like that to overcome this and keep things like atoms and people and planets and galaxies stuck together, but at a large enough scale, everything is flying apart.
Except that it seems we're not in a flat universe, but rather one that is accelerating outwards (i.e., it's got negative curvature, it's some sort of crazy hyperbolic hypersurface). This is what cosmologists are talking about when they burble on about dark energy, and that's code for “we really don't know what's going on there!”
-
This is what cosmologists are talking about when they burble on about dark energy, and that's code for “we really don't know what's going on there!”
Dark matter has always seemed like a kludge to me. Some day we'll fill in the blanks and it'll be something very different from what we thought it was.
-
Dark matter: “Physics actually has no idea what this is.”
Dark energy: “Woah, that stuff is sure strong. Got any more?”
-
something very different
Yeah, eventually they'll fall back and just call it Magic like before.
Filed under: It's not Magic, it's Advanced Science!
-
Yeah, eventually they'll fall back and just call it Magic like before.
That would an awfully disappointing missed opportunity to bring a word like "phlogiston" back into vogue.
-
That would an awfully disappointing missed opportunity to bring a word like "phlogiston" back into vogue.
So long as it interacts correctly with the luminiferous æther, we'll be fine.
-
Yeah, eventually they'll fall back and just call it Magic like before.
No problem, as long as it is useful for anyone other than the magician too.
-
So long as it interacts correctly with the luminiferous æther, we'll be fine.
What if those are the same thing? Frankly, "luminiferous ether"'s almost as good a word as phlogiston, and would be almost as suitable a term.
-
What if those are the same thing?
Inconceivable! Phlogistonic fluxes are responsible for mass changes, whereas the ripples in the æther convey light energy.
-
Phlogistonic fluxes are responsible for mass changes, whereas the ripples in the æther convey light energy.
Wait, then what is it that distributes vril?
-
-
Wait, then what is it that distributes vril?
Don't know. My initial thought is to set up a Hadoop cluster, but that's probably completely misunderstanding everything.
-
[url=https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20151005000656AAgG2TB]Is there a man made space ship that travels with speed of light ?[/url]
Oh wait, there's also this:
[url=https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20151005084124AAcseoN]Is earth a flat plane, a globe, concave etc?[/url]
Appears to be a genuineidiotquestion. A short excerpt from the very long diatribe:I'm neither a ball earther or flat earther because neither has proven either way. Conveniently, explanations are always just beyond the ability of the average person to accomplish, prove or disprove. It certainly cant be done from earths surface.
Cue a large number of comments going into the many ways in which that can be done and has been done.
-
Well, within a human body, its the flow of qi between the chakras. Across the Earth, it's the ley lines, of course.
-
It's been a while, but here's one I thought you lot would appreciate:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161222062724AAwnXcBAnd a rather funny troll:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161217033113AAw96kbThe first few answers are some pretty good trolling responses. At least, I hope they're trolling.
I do feel sorry for this person. In more ways than one.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161222035618AAJp61K
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150820021636AAZ6mJV
What's really funny is the last comment on your answer to the question.
I turn "scarlet" with shame with this kind of scholarship on Cell phones. Pitiable. There can be a special category of Best answers for idiocy.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
What did Apollo 11 astronauts watch during trip to moon?
Hopefully not Lost in Space.
-
@anonymous234 said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
@Scarlet_Manuka said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
What did Apollo 11 astronauts watch during trip to moon?
Hopefully not Lost in Space.
Tom Hanks in Apollo 13
-
@pydsigner said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
What did Apollo 11 astronauts watch during trip to moon?
Obviously they watched the fake moon landing video made by Kubrick so they'd know what to do
-
@PJH said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
Well there is the timeless How is babby formed?
Or I swallowed an ice cube whole, and I haven't pooped it out?
-
how is prangent formed – 02:00
— J.T. SexkikAnd the follow-up:
Curse of The Weggy Board – 01:49
— J.T. Sexkik
-
@RaceProUK I buy all my wedgie boards from vegans!
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
It's been a while, but here's one I thought you lot would appreciate:
In the CPU chip, the little pins on it are bended alot and my computer is unable to work. How do I fix this without buying another one.?
The question may be silly, but the problem is very real. Not sure about CPUs in particular (I think those are primarily ZIF these days?), but if I had a nickel for every IC that I busted trying to jam it into one of those prototyping DIL sockets...
-
@Maciejasjmj You used to be able to get processors that fitted into a slot, but I think now they're all ZIF sockets.
-
@xaade said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
@RaceProUK I buy all my wedgie boards from vegans!
Ouija boards from vaginas?
-
@dse said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
One can measure the acceleration (rate of change in speed) in every directions of space by looking at their red-shift.
@dkf said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
But that's not helpful if your yardsticks (for space and time) are shrinking too.
If light in a vacuum is constant then having emitted light not change length would explain red-shift in the constant-universe/shrinking-contents hypothesis. Given the mechanisms of emission (AIUT) you wouldn't really be able to see it happening locally, only when the light has hung around long enough for the scale-change to become noticeable as redshift. In order to allow for red-shift and blue-shift, this would be an effect on top of Doppler shifts.
IOW, light keeps the size it was emitted at, and the red-shift bias is from everything else shrinking, making the light look longer, relatively.
Also, there's no need to require a different geometry of space, I think: the difference is simply in what you consider constant: the size of an atom, or the length of emitted light. It's relative - a perspective change causing different interpretations of the observations, but the same laws underneath.
-
@boomzilla said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
This reminds me of a short story I once read. I don't remember all of the details, and there were golems involved in the character figuring stuff out, but the thing of it was that sexual reproduction wasn't what it is IRL. Inside of eggs were microscopic people waiting to be fertilized and grown. And inside them were more tiny people, etc. And the problem was that eventually there was going to be an end to the tiny people (got too small or something), which was obviously very disturbing to the guy who discovered that there were only a few generations left. Something like that.
Breaking magical reproduction for fun and profit? Why yes!
-
The first half of the question isn't necessarily stupid. The second half, on the other hand...
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161223015508AAb5ODVSomeone who's just confused about how things work:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161223071815AAKoRGB
(tempted to say "neither, it goes into your bathtub")Completely not getting the concept:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161221190215AAjfNj1do you even vector bro
I hate to pick on the Pregnancy & Parenting category because there's so much there, but this one deserves it.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161222224837AAWR5tt
-
This one's special enough for a post all of its own. Plus I need to stop wasting time and do the actual stuff I need to finish before I go on leave.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161022023409AAWzLPd
Side note: the sponsored ad below the first answer for this one is "Don't let meth control your life." Though from what little I know of the subject, this poster is probably on some other drug.
... OK, not on its own any more, I found him a friend:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326064053AAdJ54i
-
@Scarlet_Manuka
I wonder if Tomorrow Universe opens on the moon if locals still get early access to tickets.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
Would it be possible to build ships from Star Wars in real life?
If that's a strange question for you, it's better you don't hang out on Worldbuilding SE...
-
@Nprz said in Stupid things I've seen on Yahoo! Answers (but I repeat myself):
Yahoo Answers has more trolls than this place.
I'm back. What did I miss?