|
Member
(06-01-2012, 12:05 PM)
|
#103
So you would have about 1 billion years extra leeway. Which incidentally is time enough for life to become extinct and arise again. |
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 12:14 PM)
|
#104
Maybe it's just me, but if the sun we're to be flung out of its orbit, that would affect our orbit as well, to the extend we could be thrown out of the solar system. |
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 12:24 PM)
|
#106
|
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 01:55 PM)
|
#107
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0531135438.htm
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Banned
(06-01-2012, 02:10 PM)
|
#108
what if newtonian mechanics and general relativity are wrong? what if they suddenly accelerate and blow up tomorrow? Live every day like it'll be your last! Don't be fooled into complacency by science! The world may end tomorrow, so jump head first into life with reckless abandon!!! brb, gonna go buy some energy drinks so i can play Diablo 3 all day |
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 02:25 PM)
|
#109
As far as I know, that's the case. Because there is so much space in... space, the likelihood of an actual collision with another star is remote. Could happen, though. It's crap shoot, really, because how can you totally be certain about a future 4 billion years from now. I doubt there is any calculation that could reach that far out.
|
|
car flags....
car flags everywhere (06-01-2012, 02:26 PM)
|
#110
How is it even possible to simulate something that catastrophic? We're not even sure how far the effects of the sun stretch in our own solar system so how can we simulate the effects of two galaxys colliding? To be fair tho, relatively, the galaxys are pretty empty(filled with dark matter) so maybe a collision won't be that bad....
|
|
sputum-flecked apoplexy
(06-01-2012, 02:30 PM)
|
#111
|
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 03:20 PM)
|
#112
It's okay guys, we are almost able to create synthetics, so this cycle is done for anyway.
I'll dance on Bioware's shallow grave, I assure you. And I'll invite friends to the party on the landfill of EA. edit: about modelling: all models are temporary based on our current ideas or 'understanding' of certain phenomena. You have Kurt Gödel to thank for that bit of knowledge about knowledge. (which unfortunately has been largely ignored during the 20th century, and you would be hard pressed to find university students or fellow gaffers to know about it) A model is always a theoretical construct, not a direct representation of reality. Our models may all be very, very wrong, and we have no way of knowing that before someone figures that out (and by extension of complexity, a lot of other people as well at the same time). But when we do, we can adjust accordingly and laugh at our faulty predictions. Well, unless the new result is "we're all gonna die! (with 98% confidence). That wouldn't be very funny. Which is kind of a problem for climate science and some other fields nobody want to hear about, because they just aren't very funny. Maybe the people in those fields should start wearing a lot of make-up, to be a "smile" on their faces. Science: Why so serious?
Last edited by Zeitgeister; 06-01-2012 at 03:37 PM.
Reason: Returns my calls, Batman
|
|
Member
(06-01-2012, 03:48 PM)
|
#113
|
|
(06-02-2012, 07:38 PM)
|
#115
If we slingshot around the sun we can go back and do everything over again. Brand spanking new earth.
|