Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Mind=blown

profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
how did I never notice this before? post more pics that will blow minds

Click for larger image
Jul 9 2010 5:05PM
810 29
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
The main thing in the whole universe explanation that I can't really figure out is dark matter and dark energy.


Above are the wikipedia links for each. I understand that dark matter is supposedly a form of matter that makes up a large portion of matter in the universe but neither emits nor absorbs light on a noticable level. Dark energy I understand a little less. Nevertheless, what is their significance in the grand scheme of things?
Aug 20 2012 2:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Pudge
Posts: 3718 - Karma: 3,117
Unlike their name suggests, they are not the same thing, or even related really. Astronomers don't really think when they name things some time :p They are "dark" simply because we cannot see them!

Dark energy, in a nutshell, is the force that is opposite of gravity. It's just a force. Gravity pulls, dark energy pushes. It is the force of expansion in a few words. It is the reason the universe is expanding and will continue to expand to no end, as I outlined above!

Dark matter you pretty had spot on. It is matter we cannot see, but are aware it's there due to the math and gravitational lensing. It does make up a LARGE portion of the universe's matter, around 17/20th. So they are not really related, with the exception that we cannot see them. They are "dark".

Astro-physicists have tried to tie dark matter to the universe's expansion but I have never seen the relation clearly, it is matter so it would have properties of gravity, not repulsion. Either way, they are both real cool stuff!

And thanks sack (:
Aug 20 2012 6:13PM
0 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
cold comfort
Aug 20 2012 6:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Pudge
Posts: 3718 - Karma: 3,117
Hey, I'm hot.

Click for larger image

Aug 20 2012 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
I've heard dark matter/ matter contained within black holes to support the cyclic theory, as opposed to the continual expansion of the big bang theory
Aug 20 2012 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Pudge
Posts: 3718 - Karma: 3,117
I am actually not familiar with that! Is it saying that dark matter is the matter in black holes or is the matter responsible for the oscillations of the universe? I am not sure what you mean
Aug 20 2012 11:02PM
0 0
profile picture
7-3instacall
Posts: 999 - Karma: 1,005
and the black part on the east of it is pretty much the same face
Aug 20 2012 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
I'm sure you're familiar with the big bang theory and the cyclic theory. For those who aren't, the big bang theory states that a really long time ago (approx 13.7 billion years), all the matter that currently exists in the universe today was squished into this tiny space as small as/smaller than an atom. The extreme friction caused by these squeezing together caused such tremendous heat/release of energy that it sent everything blasting outwards at ~the speed of light and that's when time and space began, and the universe has been expanding ever since and will continue to expand either a) forever or b) until the "great rip" or "great freeze" or whatever (both have been outlined earlier in this thread). The cyclic theory is similar, except that it says that the great expansion we experienced ~13.7 billion years ago was merely the most recent in a chain of great expansions that have been going on for eternity, and that after every great expansion, the universe expands for billions and billions of years until it reaches a peak size and contracts upon itself, and once it gets back to that super small sub-atomic size again the entire process repeats itself. That's both of those in a nutshell. The former of the two is more widely accepted, and for the reason I'm about to discuss. The main criticism of the cyclic theory comes at the idea that the universe will at some point reach a limit of its expansion and begin to contract. This implies that the edges of the universe would have to be pulled back inward by some extremely powerful gravitational force, but as far as our telescopes can gather, there are no objects massive enough to generate a gravitational force powerful enough to pull the universe back together. Some people have hypothesized that there may be enough mass within black holes towards the center of the universe, but there is no concrete evidence to support this hypothesis. I guess it's vaguely possible that the universe's dark matter could be responsible for a "great contraction," although that's mostly speculation on my part.

More on the cyclic theory here:



Aug 21 2012 2:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Pudge
Posts: 3718 - Karma: 3,117
Not going to quote all that and scroll bomb ^^ :p I had a conversation with one of my physics teachers about cyclic theory and he said he doesn't think it's valid because it is contradicting one of the laws of thermodynamics (which I am not by any means familiar with). He told me something along the lines of the universe would have to expand to be a larger size with each oscillation. \

So if we extrapolate that in reverse, that means with each successive universe we look back the size and duration of the universe would approach zero. That is how I always understood it and why I didn't think it was valid either. He did far a lot better job explaining it than I ever could
Aug 21 2012 8:27AM
0 0
profile picture
ryantheconnolly
Posts: 2027 - Karma: 108
Click for larger image
Aug 23 2012 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
ryantheconnolly
Posts: 2027 - Karma: 108
sand under 250X microscope
Click for larger image
Sep 4 2012 1:15AM
0 0
profile picture
KillaSteeze
Posts: 3329 - Karma: 351
omg thats crazy
Sep 4 2012 1:21AM
0 0
profile picture
HamFaceGirl
Posts: 5242 - Karma: 2,679
AHAHAHAHAA
Sep 4 2012 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
technique.
Posts: 1538 - Karma: 308
this is sand from a different beach blown up 300x

Click for larger image
Sep 4 2012 3:54PM
0 0
profile picture
technique.
Posts: 1538 - Karma: 308
but actually that is really sick
Sep 4 2012 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
EricaMN.
Posts: 2704 - Karma: 346
Click for larger image
Oct 3 2012 12:25AM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
holyshitballs
Oct 3 2012 12:53AM
0 0
profile picture
B-runge
Posts: 16558 - Karma: 360
what the fuck
Oct 3 2012 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
ALaw
Posts: 2616 - Karma: 1,552
Genius
Oct 3 2012 2:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Rafiki
Posts: 3858 - Karma: 2,251
JUST WATCH IT.
Click for larger image
Oct 3 2012 2:28AM
0 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
time related mind fucks;


The difference in time between when Tyrannosaurus Rex and Stegosaurus lived is greater than the difference in time between Tyrannosaurus Rex and now

The Great Pyramid was built circa 2560 BC, and Cleopatra lived 69 BC – 30 BC, and the first Moon landing was in 1969, AD. which means Cleopatra lived closer to the Moon landing than she did to the building of the Great Pyramid.

the wright brothers flew for the first time in 1903. we landed on the moon in 1969. it only took 66 years.

The Ottoman Empire still existed the last time the Chicago Cubs won a World Series

this is pretty good
Click for larger image
may have been posted before

and this probably has been too but its worth the repost for those who havent seen it
Click for larger image

a Blue Whale's heart is so big, a small child can swim through the veins

Click for larger image

hopefully that was mostly new stuff
Oct 8 2012 11:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
^Holy shit all the time ones are crazy
Oct 8 2012 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
^good post!
Oct 9 2012 6:23AM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
I figured that one out. I had a feeling the wedding ring had something to do with it since it was on and off throughout the movie. Watched it second time through and paid close attention to the ring. Its crazy how many times they show his hands to try and tell you its the ring. But at the end of the movie, if I remember correctly there is a scene where Cobb and the girl from Juno are in Limbo, they are walking to find Mal in the world Cobb and Mal built. They enter a house and he draws his gun, he has no ring on, IMO meaning he has accepted his Mal is dead. When he turns the corner and sees Mal, the ring is back on. This 1 scene disproved my theory. But then again, I did watch it a few years ago and am not sure the specifics of the scene. Now I'm gonna go watch inception again.



And heres the ring theory, didnt watch tho.
Oct 9 2012 9:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11953 - Karma: 12,292
^Better post!

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image
Oct 9 2012 11:37AM
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,903
in relation to the wild thornberrys picture, did you also know

Click for larger image

is the voice of

Click for larger image

?
Oct 9 2012 1:33PM
0 0
profile picture
zues
Posts: 6434 - Karma: -5,332
god this thread is GOLD
Oct 9 2012 2:26PM
0 0
profile picture
zues
Posts: 6434 - Karma: -5,332
and so I must contribute to it!



a millimeter is not a millionth of a meter

Oct 9 2012 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
nkmo.
Posts: 3994 - Karma: 285
Click for larger image
Oct 9 2012 2:40PM
0 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
bahahaha you cant be serious
Oct 9 2012 4:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Bar_Down
Posts: 5896 - Karma: 395
ahahahahahaha nice
Oct 9 2012 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
zues
Posts: 6434 - Karma: -5,332
Click for larger image
Oct 9 2012 10:20PM
0 0
profile picture
mmallender.
Posts: 5805 - Karma: 936
Click for larger image
Oct 10 2012 3:44AM
0 0
profile picture
84891jnf92048
Posts: 11552 - Karma: 2,550
good try. we all know you're just stupid.
Oct 12 2012 10:19AM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11953 - Karma: 12,292
Click for larger image
Oct 12 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
qeefmasterflex
Posts: 662 - Karma: 1,520
I am on this page
Oct 12 2012 1:15PM
0 0
profile picture
sammiedee
Posts: 974 - Karma: 175
Click for larger image
Oct 13 2012 6:05PM
0 0
profile picture
cbj
Posts: 2114 - Karma: 1,136
That was fucking awesome!
Oct 13 2012 6:08PM
0 0
profile picture
FerrisBueller
Posts: 8280 - Karma: 5,173
beyond the human experience are the things we cannot conceive of only to speculate the deep and most revealing things about our reality on a universal scale.


Oct 13 2012 6:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Daph
Posts: 5978 - Karma: 5,005
And the voice of Meg during the first season of Family Guy
Oct 13 2012 6:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Spinoza
Posts: 12763 - Karma: 3,844
Why would you want that
Oct 13 2012 7:20PM
0 0
profile picture
bustinthejus
Posts: 2419 - Karma: 74
Doritos on EVERYTHING!
Oct 13 2012 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
FerrisBueller
Posts: 8280 - Karma: 5,173
I PUT THAT SHIT IN MY COCO PEBBLES WITH HOT SAUCE
Oct 14 2012 2:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Spinoza
Posts: 12763 - Karma: 3,844
i like putting Doritos in my sandwiches. Fkn Bold BBQ Doritos in a roast beef or turkey coldcut sandwich on a fresh bun with caesar salad dressing. and Orangina to drink. that was my childhood.
but putting it in a shaker like that is unnecessary, its like something Taco Bell would advertise.
Oct 14 2012 2:08AM
0 0
profile picture
450out.
Posts: 596 - Karma: 517
Click for larger image
Oct 14 2012 4:17AM
0 0
profile picture
DERS.
Posts: 6299 - Karma: 1,293
dude maybe if ure eatin some c4c shit...
Oct 14 2012 4:34AM
0 0
profile picture
cbj
Posts: 2114 - Karma: 1,136
Click for larger image
Oct 14 2012 4:39AM
0 0
profile picture
FerrisBueller
Posts: 8280 - Karma: 5,173
AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oct 15 2012 8:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Mitten
Posts: 1298 - Karma: 3,582
If a hole were put all the way through the earth from one side to another and you threw a ball down it would it just hover in the middle of the core or go out one end then come back through because of gravity?
Oct 15 2012 8:38PM
0 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
besides the fact that this is impossible for millions of reasons, i think it would fly way past the centre, slow down, come back, fly way past again, slow down, come back etc for a LOOOOOONG ass time, oscillating back and forth past the centre of gravity until it stops. i guess, with an equal force pushing on it from all directions, it would either collapse on itself, or just float there basically suspended in space.
Oct 15 2012 8:42PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)