Grand_Admiral_Thrawn Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 An opinion I share. It is an attempt to applyreal-world laws to the SW universe. That can (and must) be done the ST universe, but no SW. History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up with it will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralFishface Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I agree. Star Wars (and Babylon 5, which is just as good an example) are really more fantasy than sci-fi. They just use a sci-fi setting to tell a fantasy tale. That's what I like about them and that's why SW can never sucessfully be compared to the ST universe. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/RiesstiuIV/Krempel/trapaure.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 ST is far too technical. SW is much more fun. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Admiral_Thrawn Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 In the lates SW Insider mag there is a question about the destruction of the second Death Star. If you were to follow real-world laws of physics etc., all of th eewoks would have been killed and Endor would have been in a nuclear winter. History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up with it will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Because of the Core? http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIIIC Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 About the universe size, there are 3 different official ideas... The first one is that the universe is in constant gross, and getting bigger at speed of light, which means we will never be able to get to its end.  The second idea is that the universe swells to a certain size until the power, the pressure and the heat aren’t enough, and then it minimize back to ONE atom size, to start swelling again, as a cycle.  The tired version is the one that fish face mentioned, and it is probably the most recognised. Imagine that the universe is like earth, when you walk, you never get to an end, but you get back to the same spot all the time. Well it is a bit the same thing but in 3D. When you go in a straight line, you will gradually get back to the same spot. Now just imagine for your self what is the correct answer, will we ever know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSamaritan Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I prefer to think that the while universe, is just laying in a pile of goo, on some planet, circling a sun. And as the universe evolves, the goo does also, and creates the first life on the planet. I once knew a great man. Nothing got to him, and he always smiled. May he forever rest in peace, knowing fully well that his freinds shall remember him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Nice Explanations N3C http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 There is no space outside of the Universe, so the Universe does not float through space. Neither is there any time outside of the Universe, so the Universe does not evolve through time. It simply Is.   The second idea is that the universe swells to a certain size until the power, the pressure and the heat aren’t enough, and then it minimize back to ONE atom size, to start swelling again, as a cycle.  Today's APoD is pretty nifty - it is all about evidence of the existence of dark energy, and that the Universe will expand forever. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040801.html   Also, from Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ: Is the Big Bang a Black Hole? The Big Bang is really nothing like a black hole. The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIIIC Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Is the Big Bang a Black Hole?  The Big Bang is really nothing like a black hole. The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point.  A black hole is also a certain mass that is growing and that as a so big magnetic attraction, like a big vacuum cleaner, that it sucks up its one mass and light (or image to make it simple). A black hole is black, because the light that passes the magnetic field in one way, reflects against the mass but is retained by the field, it is lick a hole where you can put as much light as you want, it will never come back to you, so you have the impression that there is no end. Those that seem clear because it is quit easy to get mixed up I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 It was in the news just a few days ago that Stephen Hawking has proven that "information" cannot disappear, so that any matter that enters a black hole will _eventually_ re-emerge (but in a "mangled" form). It blows my mind a little bit that he could prove such a thing to be true and I have no idea how he could do so... Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIIIC Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I suppose it will come out when the black hole dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I remember ols films that said that black holes were like portals. But I guess we shall never know. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 That's one of the things that Hawking was saying, that black holes are not portals (to pocket universes or anywhere else). Again, it kind of blows my mind that he could prove such a thing. Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 My guess is tht if you were sucked into a black hole you would be compresse into a state a near inexistence. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Admiral_Thrawn Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 You would be torn apart, then compressed. Hawking also theorized that if you were able to reach the "surface" of a black hole, you could manipulate time, because the dimensions are seaparated there. History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up with it will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralFishface Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 ...which wouldn't do you any good, because you'd have to move faster than light to escape the surface of a black hole.And as much as I like all the sci-fi theories about FTL travel, it is currently widely accepted as one of the fundamental laws that no information can be transmitted faster than light, including, but not limited to, matter. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/RiesstiuIV/Krempel/trapaure.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Admiral_Thrawn Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 You would have to travel at the speed of light to escape the event horizon of a black hole. but there would be no way to escape the surface of one since you would exist as atoms, if that. History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up with it will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 The paradoxical thing about talking about lightspeed travel is that, from a photon's "point of view", all of time passes in a timeless instant... Edit: I didn't mean to imply that there was anything paradoxical about photons. But if an observer were to travel at lightspeed, from his point of view, the universe would end (and he would have to end along with it). Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Admiral_Thrawn Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Interesting, though I think that if one were to travel at lighspeed, the universe would appear to slow and, if you were to sufficiently exceed the speed of light, stop. History is on the move, Captain. Those who cannot keep up with it will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 It would be like approaching the event horizon of a black hole. As you get closer and closer to the event horizon (ignoring the fact that you would be ripped apart) time outside of your local frame of reference (which at that point would be very small) would seem to pass more and more quickly. When you reached the event horizon time would be passing infinitely quickly - as it does for a photon. If the universe will have an end, you would reach it - but the end of the universe would mean your end as well. Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 So what you are saying is that the black hole is actually a part where the univers has died. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teukros Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I suppose you could say that the event horizon of a black hole is a region where the universe has died, but only from the point of view of an observer there. Of course you could say the same thing about a photon. The thing I don't understand is how does matter ever re-emerge from a black hole during the lifetime of the universe... seems to be a contradiction there... Put an overpowered Solar Ionization Reactor in between two cheap-ass engines and a couple of laser cannon, put a chair with a rudimentary flight control and targeting computer on top, and surround the (unpressurized!) pilot with enough armor plate so he doesn't fry in a tenth of a second... riiiiiiiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIIIC Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 In the mater of a fact I think a black hole is the end of a dead star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad78 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I guess you could theorise. What if the Big Bang was actually a black hole which had got to a state of sturation and who had exploded liberating itsa content. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Palpycard.gifhttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mad78/Spamkinguserbarcopy.jpgCLICK HERE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!Click here is you like Trance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now