Realising Obvious Things (that Blow Your Mind)

adolf hamster said:
how could it expand if it was already infinite? thought we already knew the size of the "universe"?

in order for there to be expansion, there must be a limit that is increasing in order for it to be expanding.

wether or not that limit is something that could ever viably be reached, and what lies beyond is a question nobody in our lifetime (or possible the entire human species) will ever know.

unless we're being pedantic and including whatever the "universe" is expanding into as also part of the universe.

and now i'm confused :p
Click to expand...

I said "finite", not "infinite". If it is expanding, it must be finite, albeit changing.

The big question is what does it expand into? What is outside?
 
azazl187 said:
But does it? Nothing is infinite...
Click to expand...

Many things are infinite? Do some maths, it's riddled with the concept of infinity. Time is also considered to be infinite.

adolf hamster said:
thought we already knew the size of the "universe"?
Click to expand...

The size of the universe assumes that nothing existed besides the big bang, it is calculated by just the speed of the escaping light by the age of the universe.

adolf hamster said:
unless we're being pedantic and including whatever the "universe" is expanding into as also part of the universe.
Click to expand...

It is believed there is a roughly finite quantity of energy and matter in the universe yes, we'd at least hope so as otherwise thermodynamics is broken.

adolf hamster said:
there must be a limit that is increasing in order for it to be expanding.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows. The main issue is that, although we can speculate on the end of the universe, (how infinite the universe is, is usually associated with theories concerning the end of the universe) it's largely all just that - speculation. Every time I've spoken about this with an Astrophysics Master/PHD, they've told me that the theories about the end of the universe are completely untestable and probably wrong; and for the most part Scientists have better things to be researching, such as what exists on quantum; subatomic level, how and why stars explode or how likely we are to find life on other worlds.
 
Last edited:
Danm54 said:
If it doesn't go on forever then it must have an end right? So what's beyond that?
Click to expand...
That's the kicker. It's either infinite (mind boggles!) or it's not and that means there's something else beyond it. Not sure which I prefer :p
 
potatolord said:
I thought it was impossible for anything to move faster than light?
Click to expand...

IIRC each bit of the universe is only expanding at a rate lower than the speed of light. So if you compared one end to the other then they would be moving apart faster than the speed of light, but each bit of the universe is moving apart from the bit next to it at a much slower speed.
 
R.P.L said:
IIRC each bit of the universe is only expanding at a rate lower than the speed of light. So if you compared one end to the other then they would be moving apart faster than the speed of light, but each bit of the universe is moving apart from the bit next to it at a much slower speed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the space between us and the 'edge' is expanding - it's not just objects moving away. At about 15bn ly or whatever it is, there is enough expanding space between us and objects, for that expansion to exceed lightspeed. The objects themselves do not exceed it.
This forms our 'observable universe'. Even if there is something beyond, we cannot ever see it. Move towards it, the horizon will move further back.
Assuming the rate of expansion remains constant, we will never see beyond this limit.
 
I explained to my dad a few months ago about how milk is produced. He thought (I did for a long time too) that cows just always have milk and we just milk them. He didn't realise that we have to forcibly impregnate them, then when their baby is born, we take it away to be killed so we can take the milk for ourselves. We are basically breast feeding off a cow. Unsurprisingly I now drink oat milk.
 
It's called the alphabet because the greek alphabet stats 'alpha, beta, ....'

Edit: Fortnight = fourteen nights
Edit2: Mint condition = condition the coin left the mint in
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LiE said:
I explained to my dad a few months ago about how milk is produced. He thought (I did for a long time too) that cows just always have milk and we just milk them. He didn't realise that we have to forcibly impregnate them, then when their baby is born, we take it away to be killed so we can take the milk for ourselves. We are basically breast feeding off a cow. Unsurprisingly I now drink oat milk.
Click to expand...

Partially true.

Most female calves will be reared to join the milking herd but male calves will either be shot after birth or sold to be reared for veal or beef. The number of calves being shot at birth has greatly decreased and more are now reared for meat.
 
Surveyor said:
Partially true.

Most female calves will be reared to join the milking herd but male calves will either be shot after birth or sold to be reared for veal or beef. The number of calves being shot at birth has greatly decreased and more are now reared for meat.
Click to expand...

Yea I was simplifying a little :p
 
Cows had to be "invented" by humans [selectively bred] so we could farm the milk of a docile animal because their ancestors, aurochs, were too aggressive to get milk from.

Talking of which...

LiE said:
I explained to my dad a few months ago about how milk is produced. He thought (I did for a long time too) that cows just always have milk and we just milk them. He didn't realise that we have to forcibly impregnate them, then when their baby is born, we take it away to be killed so we can take the milk for ourselves. We are basically breast feeding off a cow. Unsurprisingly I now drink oat milk.
Click to expand...

Well, that is interesting. I didn't know that, I don't know about the "forcibly impregnate" part, since apparently...

Cows won’t stand to be inseminated unless in oestrus and it would be an entirely futile procedure trying to force an insemination on a cow who is not in the correct biological state to conceive.

Artificial insemination mimics this process without the dangers inherent in handling bulls.

The cow makes it very clear pregnancy is her desired outcome, so suggesting it is somehow “rape” or non-consensual is wrong.
Click to expand...

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/13-milk-myths-misconceptions-debunked

I think the worst part is that their offspring is taken away from them. Has made me think about different milk sources, for certain.
 
Lysander said:
I think the worst part is that their offspring is taken away from them. Has made me think about different milk sources, for certain.
Click to expand...

IIRC, they take the calves away because given the chance, the calves continue to suckle as long as they can, and the mother ends up kicking (and possibly injuring the calf) to get them to go away and wean off milk. I have seen older calves with a sort of gate thing in their nose that falls down to stop them suckling when they need to get weaned, so they get to stay with the mother longer, without getting hurt by the mother driving them off to make them stop drinking milk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom