What is the universe made of? II
What is the universe made of? II
Dear, oh dear. That first effort was so bad, it's embarrassing. No matter; I've made a whole bunch of changes, which I hope are improvements. You can see the results here: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... of_13.html and any feedback will be gratefully received.
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: What is the universe made of? II
"everything we see is made of atoms"
I disagree...
the universe is mostly "unseen" space between unseen "atoms"... (or monads or what-have-you...)
ether be damned
-Imp
I disagree...
the universe is mostly "unseen" space between unseen "atoms"... (or monads or what-have-you...)
ether be damned
-Imp
Re: What is the universe made of? II
True, dark matter, dark energy and whatnot, but "everything we see is made of atoms"Impenitent wrote:"everything we see is made of atoms"
I disagree...
the universe is mostly "unseen" space between unseen "atoms"...
Shame about Chuck Berry.
Re: What is the universe made of? II
The Key phrase is "everything we see", so what is invisible, we don't see.uwot wrote:True, dark matter, dark energy and whatnot, but "everything we see is made of atoms"Impenitent wrote:"everything we see is made of atoms"
I disagree...
the universe is mostly "unseen" space between unseen "atoms"...
Shame about Chuck Berry.
Re: What is the universe made of? II
What is the universe made of? - Stuff.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
What is the universe made of?
Azathoth poop.
Re: What is the universe made of? II
Yup. That's pretty much the basic premise.thedoc wrote:What is the universe made of? - Stuff.
Re: What is the universe made of?
Quite possibly. Could you add some reasoning to this claim?henry quirk wrote:Azathoth poop.
Re: What is the universe made of?
You spelled "seasoning" wrong.uwot wrote:Quite possibly. Could you add some reasoning to this claim?henry quirk wrote:Azathoth poop.
Re: What is the universe made of?
If you say so, duc.thedoc wrote:You spelled "seasoning" wrong.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: What is the universe made of? II
Have all the 'illions been curtailed now?
So I at last have got that a billion is no longer what it says, i.e. two lot of millions, i.e. a million million and is now a paltry thousand million but have all the rest gone down this unintuitive route as well? As it was so simple, Tri for three, Quad for four, Quint for five(ok maybe not that intuitive), sext, sept, etc.
So I at last have got that a billion is no longer what it says, i.e. two lot of millions, i.e. a million million and is now a paltry thousand million but have all the rest gone down this unintuitive route as well? As it was so simple, Tri for three, Quad for four, Quint for five(ok maybe not that intuitive), sext, sept, etc.
Re: What is the universe made of? II
Well, there's yer long scale and yer short scale, but frankly, whether it's 21 or 36 zeros, a sextillion is a facking big number.Arising_uk wrote:Have all the 'illions been curtailed now?
Re: What is the universe made of? II
Let me repeat again: The Universe is made from condensing/crystallizing aether/physical space/vacuum. Elementary particles are certain structural defects in it. The Future is not prepared yet. The (quantum, live) Presence is phase border between (growing) solid History and the (obscure) Future:)
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: What is the universe made of? II
Your posts never fail to disappoint.Cerveny wrote:Let me repeat again: The Universe is made from condensing/crystallizing aether/physical space/vacuum. Elementary particles are certain structural defects in it. The Future is not prepared yet. The (quantum, live) Presence is phase border between (growing) solid History and the (obscure) Future:)
LOL
Re: What is the universe made of? II
I see you're getting loads of quality feedback about poor naming standards for the 'illion' numbers.uwot wrote:Dear, oh dear. That first effort was so bad, it's embarrassing. No matter; I've made a whole bunch of changes, which I hope are improvements. You can see the results here: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... of_13.html and any feedback will be gratefully received.
My two cents this time is barely that. I will comment mostly on the last two panels, but with the disclaimer that I'm no expert on accretion theory.
There is a thread going around about how heavy and light things fall at the same pace. Consequently it would seem that hydrogen and all the heavier crap would form stars and planets with similar distributions of the elements. My understanding is that this is true: There are natural (not locally created, at least not yet) heavy elements in the sun just as much as anywhere. But the inner planets are not massive enough to retain their share of the light stuff, and much of what they did retain got blown away by solar wind once the wind formed. You'd think Pluto would be far enough away to retain some of its share, but it hardly has the gravity necessary to retain an atmosphere in the first place. Point is, I think it is a mistake to state that lighter elements accelerated quickest. That makes no sense.
In fact an atom or any other object tends to orbit a center of gravity, and something needs to slow down that orbital speed in order to let it drop down and become part of the star. The planets might play a role in this. Earth must have had thousands of 'moons' at one point, all of which eventually got flung away, fell to Earth, or coalesced into the one Moon which in its billions of years has managed to clean nearby space pretty much clean of all those teeny objects, at least before humans recluttered the space up with new junk.
About the whimper death: Our sun will go Nova, which is hardly a whimper, but is also hardly a supernova like the one that formed the crab nebula. Mars is the innermost planet that will survive the sun going Nova. Plenty of explosion and formation of heavier things, but without the supernova, much less (if any) of things heavier than iron, and nothing dramatic like a neutron star or black hole like what is centered on said crab nebula.
Does anybody know what the long term prospects of a planet like Jupiter are? Once the sun goes out and its own geothermal energy runs out, the thing has to drop in temperature to a strange dense (liquid??) hydrogen-covered object.