Re: The mind blowing facts thread
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:53 am
Wait, Brando was in the Superman movie?
Also, I wonder who was pitching...
Also, I wonder who was pitching...
Yep, played Jor El for all of five minutes at the start and, IIRC, squeezed all the money he could out of the studio for it.Andalu wrote:Wait, Brando was in the Superman movie?
Also, I wonder who was pitching...
Keeps her eyes closed to avoid the suds.de_Selby wrote:What does his mother do these days?Clive Simms wrote:Emmanuel Adebayor's dad still washes elephants
and avoids CMMfatcat wrote:Keeps her eyes closed to avoid the suds.de_Selby wrote:What does his mother do these days?Clive Simms wrote:Emmanuel Adebayor's dad still washes elephants
Rubbish I can!!Beaver_Shark wrote:It's impossible to hum while holding your nose.
Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.Andalu wrote:Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
I always find that disparity weird - 13.8 billion years is obviously a very long time, and my feeling that it’s manageable and I get what it means is a little delusional, but it still feels like it’s on a scale I can cope with. Whereas 93 billion light years is not a distance I can even begin to imagine comprehending.A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
You can imagine time in a linear fashion, whereas space is more abstract, even on a terrestrial scale it's always slightly disconcerting just how big Italy, for example, actually is in physical terms compared to you.Mahoney wrote:I always find that disparity weird - 13.8 billion years is obviously a very long time, and my feeling that it’s manageable and I get what it means is a little delusional, but it still feels like it’s on a scale I can cope with. Whereas 93 billion light years is not a distance I can even begin to imagine comprehending.A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?A5D5E5 wrote:The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.
(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)
That is why it is called a "Paradox" rather than a theorem!Mog The Almighty wrote:Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?A5D5E5 wrote:The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.
(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)
That doesn't even make sense. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me you'd be making doubling the amount of matter you have, and you know the laws of thermodynamics...
We know that God exists because mathemtics is consistent, and we know that the Devil exists because we cannot prove it.Mog The Almighty wrote:Wot? Are you sure you've got that right?A5D5E5 wrote:The Banach-Tarski Paradox shows that mathematically it is possible to cut a solid sphere into a limited number of pieces (possibly as low as 5) and then reassemble the pieces into two solid spheres of exactly the same size as the original. In practice of course, it is a bit harder.
(For a reason I've never understood - perhaps a bet?, when I was first taught this, the lecturer explained it as applying to rabbits rather than spheres)
That doesn't even make sense. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me you'd be making doubling the amount of matter you have, and you know the laws of thermodynamics...
I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!A5D5E5 wrote:No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.Andalu wrote:Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
I once had dinner with the master of Gonville and Caius college who had been Venn's student. He took me back to his rooms to see some original Venn diagrams. Fascinating stuff...HurricaneWasp wrote:My form tutor in Year 7 - Mrs Venn - is John Venn's great grand-daughter.guy smiley wrote:That's Venn, man. Totally Venn.koroke hangareka wrote:What if you have two pizzas?
To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.ManInTheBar wrote:I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!A5D5E5 wrote:No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.Andalu wrote:Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?
The expansion of the universe.Gwenno wrote:To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
Lego are the world's largest manufacturer of tyresdanny_fitz wrote:On average, every single person on the planet owns 14 lego bricks.
Given the amount that is currently distributed around my house, I suspect the average for the rest of the planet is closer to 13.danny_fitz wrote:On average, every single person on the planet owns 14 lego bricks.
" space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected)"A5D5E5 wrote:Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.ManInTheBar wrote:I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!A5D5E5 wrote:No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.Andalu wrote:Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Try thisManInTheBar wrote:" space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected)"A5D5E5 wrote:Because the universe is (and always has been) expanding.ManInTheBar wrote:I am suffering from Head-wrap-around-failure!A5D5E5 wrote:No, it is looking back in time. What we see now is as it was when the light was emitted. This is true for any observation of course - including things we see with our own eyes.Andalu wrote: Amazing, I assume then that the EM we get from the edges of the observable Universe don't depict that area as it is now?
If we can observe 93 billion years of the travel of light then how can the universe be only 13.8 nillion yeears old?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
This article just adds to the mystery it seems to me.
OK, that is very helpful, thank you.
Didn't like this one, got a little shiverClive Simms wrote:After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time
But 46.5 billion light years in 13.8 billion years is over 3 light years per year - expansion at over 3 times the speed of light? The barrier that can't be broken? That's why I asked - what am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The expansion of the universe.Gwenno wrote:To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
slick wrote:Didn't like this one, got a little shiverClive Simms wrote:After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time
Hasn't happened to Julius Caesar yet.MrJonno wrote:slick wrote:Didn't like this one, got a little shiverClive Simms wrote:After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time
I'm ok with it as long as it happens after I die
Oh, almost certainly - once they find your body they’re going to want to identify you to get the death certificates and any other legal stuff sorted out, so as long as you’re living in a relatively modern bureaucracy I reckon memory of you is pretty much guaranteed to outlive your death by a few days.MrJonno wrote:slick wrote:Didn't like this one, got a little shiverClive Simms wrote:After you die there will come an exact point in time where you are mentioned in conversation or thought of by another human for the very last time
I'm ok with it as long as it happens after I die
Things can't move through space faster than the speed of light. It doesn't apply to space itself. The video I linked a little earlier on the thread explains it pretty well.Gwenno wrote:But 46.5 billion light years in 13.8 billion years is over 3 light years per year - expansion at over 3 times the speed of light? The barrier that can't be broken? That's why I asked - what am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The expansion of the universe.Gwenno wrote:To my simple mind that means 46.5 billion light years' expansion in 13.8 billion years. What am I missing?A5D5E5 wrote:The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years.
That's very cool. Gonville & Caius is definitely the best Cambridge collegeSanta wrote:I once had dinner with the master of Gonville and Caius college who had been Venn's student. He took me back to his rooms to see some original Venn diagrams. Fascinating stuff...HurricaneWasp wrote:My form tutor in Year 7 - Mrs Venn - is John Venn's great grand-daughter.guy smiley wrote:That's Venn, man. Totally Venn.koroke hangareka wrote:What if you have two pizzas?
You didn't go.globus wrote:<Cough>