[knestle]

I just heard that the galaxies are more or less eveanly distributed around the universe at 500,000,000 light year intervals!

For those who haven't done the math recently, one light year (in round numbers) is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.

That means our next door neighbor (galaxy-wise) is only 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.

My head hurts.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by knestle I just heard that the galaxies are more or less eveanly distributed around the universe at 500,000,000 light year intervals! For those who haven't done the math recently, one light year (in round numbers) is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. That means our next door neighbor (galaxy-wise) is only 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. My head hurts.

So, let's say I wanted to visit my next door neighbour in the next galaxy, how long would it take me to get there travelling at the 70MPH UK speed limit?

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd So, let's say I wanted to visit my next door neighbour in the next galaxy, how long would it take me to get there travelling at the 70MPH UK speed limit?

7,338,551,859,099,804,305,283.7573385519 years

(You did ask

)

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by knestle I just heard that the galaxies are more or less eveanly distributed around the universe at 500,000,000 light year intervals! For those who haven't done the math recently, one light year (in round numbers) is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. That means our next door neighbor (galaxy-wise) is only 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. My head hurts.

Dude... use exponents. Much, MUCh easier to keep track of. 5*10^8, 9*10^18, 4.5*10^27.

As for Pinkie's question... bugger, beat to it.

 

[Feanor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Dude... use exponents. Much, MUCh easier to keep track of.

But less impressive.

You dont need to go that far for big numbers. The number of partcles in approx. one cubic foot of gas :

600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [6*10^23]

gee, I never took the time to write it down like that yet.
(I live in the metric system, so it might be a bit different)

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor But less impressive.

I'll take easier to do over impressing someone any day. Unless I'm writing out numbers in German, because that's just hilariously long. Example... How Pi to, oh, 3 decimal places? (3.141) drei.einhundertundeinundvierzig. They don't seperate the numbers as we would do (Three.One Four One), rather, they say them as one long string, in this case, one hundred and forty one.

But then, you're from Hungary, so you probably know this already. Ah well.

 

[TWIFOSP]

The numbers aren't big, they are quite average when dealing with the universe.

Our perspective is just that insignificant when compared.

 

[mjg]

The idea of the universe being finite or infinite is still up for grabs... So this is so moot or relative to what you discuss on a philiosophical level. Miles, yea miles are for geographical maps, car travel paths....

Nano meters, micrometers, are we talking about stuff the size of transistors in a cpu , or the size of organelles in a cell?

Then discussing something so massive, as the universe, and what little we know about certain displacements? Yea so using miles sounds kinda silly doesn't it? Do you count your shoe size in a unit that's like a mile at a tiny fraction.

Yea light years make sense... Only when your discussing anything that's beyond the scope of basic measurements and being very abstract... We know nothing about space, so we shouldn't try and quanitify it in such a small unit.

I mean, if the distance can even be said with such a high percision, as to how close it was in miles, it would be pretty wrong. The amount of decimal places would be a huge amount, and the amount of miles would be a huge amount, this quanity is useless. So that rounding you did isn't really giving the whole piece of the puzzle, measurements can't be taken as integers that can be off by a mile.

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan 7,338,551,859,099,804,305,283.7573385519 years (You did ask )

This is assuming several things :-

* That there is no relative motion between the starting and ending points
* That the end point is stationary in space and only pinky is in motion
* That the end point is actually where Pinky is looking right now...


None of these are true. If you are driving with vision as your guiding light then you are not tracing a straight line between you and your destination because what you see right now - is not where your destination is right now - because light takes time to travel from the destination to you and the destination is moving all time just as you are...

Gah!

 

[mjg]

ehh i edited that out...

i dont know craap about highlevel physics stuff.

 

[gsferrari]

On another note - I asked a theoretical physicist at Caltech about the terminal equations for the universe...whether it was an equation for a surface of a sphere etc. etc.

He basically said something along the lines of critical mass of the universe as a whole...after a certain point even time cannot escape the force of gravity (because of all the mass within that sphere) and therefore once you get to that point you are basically on a HUUUUUUGEEE!!! Equi-Chrono surface where time is the same irrespective of the distance you travel and the time you take. Which basically means that you are in all places around the universe at the same time.


Hmmm...sounds awfully like a supporting theory for an omnipresent entity that so many religions call "Almighty" or "God"

Anyone in that position might have the power to influence everything within and considering that we dont know the age of the universe (forget the big bang...this sh!t has been going on for ever...time doesnt have any meaning anymore) we might not be the first generation of "humans" in the universe (assuming we are the only living beings in the universe...which itself is a ridiculous notion in my opinion.

Man...just thinking about all this makes me dream about everything out there...and here we are worrying about paychecks, headphones and bass/treble

I think the hermits in the himalayas (who meditate on these things) know things that we dont. Well...not only them...I think anyone who meditates and "connects" with the universe on a higher level knows something we dont because our senses are closed to such thoughts.

I feel motivated now to forget about "reality" because it seems so silly and petty in the face of this HUGE entity just waiting to be discovered...

I want answers and what I am right now...what I am doing...what I have planned to do - is not going to get me those answers...

What do I do?

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan 7,338,551,859,099,804,305,283.7573385519 years (You did ask )

Thanks.

I think I have time to make the journey. My car travels 60 miles per gallon how much will it cost me for the trip? (£4 a gallon)

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari This is assuming several things :- * That there is no relative motion between the starting and ending points * That the end point is stationary in space and only pinky is in motion * That the end point is actually where Pinky is looking right now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan 7,338,551,859,099,804,305,283.7573385519 years (You did ask )

It will take Pinkie longer than that if he goes from St Andrews, as there are speed cameras there

 

[mjg]

basiclly i got the idea now:

the distance would have to some sort of crazy long poloynomial.

I was discussing this with this phd student guy that taught me calc 3, and he was explaining in higher level physics they use polynomials (graduate level), and alot of number theory to describe phenomenon at greater percision.

I also think it would have to be in vectors... One dimenional distance is kinda useless... Unless you want to use complicated polar coordinates?

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjg basiclly i got the idea now: the distance would have to some sort of crazy long poloynomial. I was discussing this with this phd student guy that taught me calc 3, and he was explaining in higher level physics they use polynomials (graduate level), and alot of number theory to describe phenomenon at greater percision. I also think it would have to be in vectors... One dimenional distance is kinda useless... Unless you want to use complicated polar coordinates?

You need simultaneous equations in multiple variables and vectors will not work because you are WAAAAY past 3 dimensions here...feature absolute time, relative time, absolute distance, relative distance and you are set for a few decades in the Physics and Mathematics department working out some pretty complex math...