How to combine ult galactus and normal galactus?

[HoratioRome]

I am trying to have reasoned argument on behalf of Gah Lak Tus here but it is rather difficult when I post a long, reasoned argument about why Gah Lak Tus is better which is followed by someone saying "Ultimate Galactus SUCKS! The comics version is true!" followed by a long string of "YEah! Yeah!"s without giving real reasoning or making ANY attempt to counter the points I made in favour of Gah Lak Tus. Oh yeah, and discussing whether Gah Lak Tus is a borg/matrix rip-off.

I bet Galactus was the first giant planet-eating guy too.

Here is a point by point response.

Originally Posted by Doctor of Doom
As the only person in this thread who has actually argued in FAVOUR of Ultimate Gah Lak Tus, I feel compelled to defend my point of view. Firstly let me say this; I would LOVE it if we got Galactus, and I'd LOVE it if he was done well... but I don't think he can be in these circumstances.

I DON'T think they should pick Gah Lak Tus just for the UFF readers
I DON'T agree with what they did with Doom in FF 1
BUT I can understand why they did what they did to Doom
And I can understand why they might want to choose Gah Lak Tus

So here are my arguments on why Gah Lak Tus can work better IN A MOVIE:

1. Spectacle. Let's be totally honest wirh ourselves here- I like Galactus as much as the next guy but what is going to make audiences say 'wow'- seeing an enormous guy in WHATEVER costume... no matter how big... or seeing this colossal armada of creatures through space... being told it is one hundred thousand miles long.... let's face it, for the general audience it's definitely more of a 'wow' factor

I'm sorry but I disagree. It ALL depends on how the material is handled. If poorly directed a "colossal armada" could come off as silly and stupid, and if handled well a Giant single being could be VERY terrifying. assuming they are both handled equally well, I say the Kirby Galactus is clearly the way to go because HE has generated a MUCH bigger response for a much longer time than UG. He is the proven concept. Not to mention it would avoid the whole pissing off the fans thing.

:
2. Tension and Impact. Again, I'm going to use a comparison- through FF2 and yes, into FF3 if necessary, there has to be tension about Galactus' arrival. The audience needs to feel it. Now let's face it, again, putting our own comics knowledge aside, what is going to build tension more- this mass hurtling through space or the aforementioned giant guy? But wait- tension is dependant on what they can DO. One of the (few) parts of the Ultimate Extinction series done well was showing what Gah Lak Tus has done to other planets- when Reed showed that hologram of people going insane with fear, of the virus destroying people... it worked brilliantly.

This, as opposed to a hologram of an enormous guy amidst boiling lava destroying a world.. the latter can work, but the former can work better for a movie audience. The audience really needs to feel that Galactus is a colossal threat. Another idea which would be great but very unlikely because of the light-hearted movie tone is to take from the Ultimate Galactus series the idea of every television channel on earth being taken over and just broadcasting the same message of no escape, etc. Plus it is far more 'realistic' in movie terms to have this threat suck a planet's life force rather than blow it up

again you are being biased. like many comic "fans" you seem to have a complex about comics not being good enough for the general public. But the evidence CLEARLY shows that THAT is wrong. I've heard the same arguments about Spider-man's costume prior to the movie coming out, yet, it is FULLY accepted by the "general public" because it was well done. we have to take out the image of the 70's cheesy TV fx and costumes out of our minds and understand that NOW they can bring these original designs and concepts to life in a way that does them justice. It all depends on how it is handled.

:
3. How to Defeat It- What defeats Galactus? The Ultimate Nullifier? Well, let's face it... I don't see how they can REALLY 'defeat' Galactus without killing him. In the time afforded to the movie, I just don't think it is plausible to explain that Galactus is necessary for the universe, despite the fact that he DESTROYS PLANETS, etc, etc. It doesn't work so well. The Ultimate Extinction way- destroy 20% of it's mass so that it is so badly hurt it seeks easier prey elsewhere etc, works- and then you can tie that in with the Surfer departing to tell other worlds the secret so that they will all be safe from Galactus/Gah Lak Tus. Leave the 'superhero fight' for Doctor Doom.

once again you are totally wrong. Just because YOU like this concept better does NOT mean it IS better. what you have to keep in mind is that on the one hand you have a story which TOTALLY captured the imagination of ALL those who came across, and has lasted over 40 YEARS without losing it's appeal. And on the other hand you have another story which frankly seems to have failed in capturing any reall attention. look there is MAGIC in the pages of Lee and Kirby. That magic HAS to be respected. Spider-man has proven that done well, that magic WILL translate to the general audience. and DOOM has proven that making changes "for the benefit of the general public" is not a good idea.

:
Well those are my three big arguments for why, IN THE MOVIE, Gah Lak Tus might be a more plausible idea. I feel I should make clear; I THINK they will use a more original-style Galactus, I believe Galactus has the potential to be far better if done correctly, but I am just arguing to the contrary because Gah Lak Tus can work. Plus I like being the underdog in an argument My only real problem with using Gah Lak Tus is that since FF is more 'family friendly' they won't be able to build up Gah Lak Tus as enough of a threat.

just as Galactus can work, I will agree that Gha Lak tus can work also. BUT, keep in mind the magic that the original concept has over the new one, AND keep in mind the dissapointed fans. After the DOOM debacle, I think the LAST thing they should do is make changes. and for many fans, myself included, it would be such a dissapointment NOT to see big G as himself that even if the UG was ok it would suck. The question is therefor, why mess with a good thing?

:
Oh yeah, and one last thing; as I said before, Gah Lak Tus IS the easy way out. But the easy way out is sometimes preferable to trying to bring Galactus to the bigscreen and ruining him completely. With people being so unsatisfied with FF1, I don't think I would trust Story and Co to be able to bring Galactus to life properly!

PS: I do in fact like FF1, it was not as bad as everyone said so they did destroy Doom, and I have no problem with Story and Co- I don't think I'd trust ANYONE to bring Galactus to life properly!

as I said it all depends on how it is handled. You need to remember that ANY concept poorly handled will come off as cheesy. so I say at least give us the real thing.

 

[highguard]

The universe having not obeyed it's own laws? I don't really see where you get this from. If you're following the big bang theory, which it looks like you are, then you would know about the primivial atom, which was basically all structure unto itself. If it exploded from there due to pressure and energy breakdown, then it would follow it's laws perfectly. But as for the universe not and could not existance issue? That's fiarly retrospective based on how things work to us in our known universe. WE work on beginnings and ends. There's no telling what the universe exists within, and so we can't say it simply will and will not exist at points in time.

Well that is the thing there is no telling because all those things are outside of our ability to observe. The laws in our universe tell us nothing about what we may be within (hidden dimensions), but if they existed outside of our universe then why can't we in understanding them deduce what we are within. They say like father like son. You can understand a son through his father and vice versa sometimes (ala superman) but we can't seem to understand this universe by the laws we do know. So the likelihood is that they did not give rise to this universe but rather are new or just a part of the creation and indeed may be elements of creation and existence as well. We clearly need a better understanding of a lot of things.

Now the idea that we came from a collapsing universe (this was the origin of Galactus) is not as popular as it once was because we now know that it is highly unlikely that our universe will collapse, by extension we have no evidence suggesting that this is how this universe came to be either.

So the answer seems to be more and more elusive.

Einstein himself died unable to complete what has come to be called the Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything. Other proponents are like string theory but that is also inadequate. Now the reason it is so hard to use the laws to explain exisitence is in my opinion probably due to what I said ealier they are not the cause but are elments in the creation istself.

Now you said we can only talk about beginnings, well the thing is that for this universe given the new accelerating observations there may be no end. We will it seems expand forever. Eventually then space will keep expanding like a balloon with galaxies within that balloon receding further and further from each other until they can no longer see each other.

I think that this clinches something for me. this is not a cycle we are in at all but rather this universe is a unique creation with a specific and identifiable future that without outside intervention will have no ending at all. The laws that operate in our universe do not seem to be taking it towards any kind of rebirth at all.

Now this is the thing, if no law exists to initiate the cycle then it is reasonabe to assume there is no cycle and if there is no cycle something else outside of a set system of laws initiated the universe that we do see.

Interestingly enough the origin of Galactus actually does not work in the universe that we see based on the most recent obsevations.

Now see, this is where things get tricky. This is basically Intelligent Mechanics of the Universe. The universe works simply because God wants it to that way. Which may not be the case at all. The accelerating universe caused an outward thrust that interacts with the universe on a very small, yet large scale. Galaxies more or less follow the path outward, but in some cases, don't, and in all cases, the innards of the galaxy is unaffected. So this just pushes on the assumption that galaxies observe Newton's laws, and since they're already moving in one direction uninterrupted without an atmosphere to stop it, it just keeps going. However, the forces around it, such as other galaxies, have been shown to change that. Time itself may have been there before our universe came to be as we exist in it today. It may have even been from the collapse of a former universe.

Base on my arguments above I don't even have to argue on Intelligent Mechanics whatever that is, what we are observing is clearly pointing to something outside of a known system of things triggering the existence of this universe. Given what we know and now see that is just a logical conclusion.

God being the one that did it is another argument and while I certainly believe in God that is a seperate discussion. God is clearly from what we know of the Christian God not bound by the laws we are bound by.

I have always been fascinated with how much science goes into the comic books but never thought I would have this discussion on SHH lol.

Nevertheless Mistress Gluon there is much more out there that is going on and the great thing about it is we live in an era where we are probably going to find the answers, one way or another.

 

[wobbly]

I won't pretend I can offer any insight into the workings of the universe but one thing I do firmly believe is that even with the greater understanding science continues to bring, what Shakespeare wrote centuries ago remains true to this day: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[highguard]

Gravity is proven to really be just a bend in something. It isn't really affected by vaccuums and such that the universe causes by mere expansion. If what you state WAS true to a degree that meant that the universe pulls everything to it's walls, it would be so insignificant, that it STILL wouldn't matter. Or else light and mass would only travel in an outward direction.

Just wanted to elaborate here Mistress, (I assume you use mistress cause you are married right) I probably should not have used the term vacuum as that has given the wrong impression. This energy is actually everywhere, even right in front of your hand. It pervades every area of space and indeed is acting as a counter to the force of gravity. without it there would probably be a big crunch as the force of gravity would eventually overwhelm the energy that caused the universe to explode outwards during the big bang and inflation.

When you blow up a balloon if you don't tie it off it contracts. It was thought that the energy used to inflate the universe was finite. Thus you would have to tie it off in order to stop it from contracting. So everyone knew since the Big Bang was discovered that contraction was possible.

We know the universe is not tied off or there would be no further expansion like with a balloon. We discovered expansion meaning the energy that created expansion was still at work, hence the death of the steady state theory. However it was thought to be just a leftover effect from the intial explosion of the universe into existence.

The big surprise was discovering that the balloon is expanding at an accelerating rate. That means the thing that started the expansion is still blowing and vigorously impacting the universe. That is what vacuum energy really is, it is still acting on the universe.

The reason things don't all move in the same direction is that at the local level gravity overpowers this energy but at the cosmic level this force is overpowering gravity. Both forces are at work but on earth we are stuck on the surface but on the galactic level our sun, moon, the earth and our galaxy is receding from most galaxies.

It is the principle of the shuttle going to space, at a certain point above the earth we escape gravity, to do this we have to achieve escape velocity.

We need fuel to do it.

on a galactic level the galaxies are escaping from each other, they need fuel to do this, that energy is being provided by what I call vacuum energy. others call it quintesence, others dark/invisible/hidden/unknown energy.

 

[highguard]

I won't pretend I can offer any insight into the workings of the universe but one thing I do firmly believe is that even with the greater understanding science continues to bring, what Shakespeare wrote centuries ago remains true to this day: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Too True

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Well that is the thing there is no telling because all those things are outside of our ability to observe. The laws in our universe tell us nothing about what we may be within (hidden dimensions), but if they existed outside of our universe then why can't we in understanding them deduce what we are within. They say like father like son. You can understand a son through his father and vice versa sometimes (ala superman) but we can't seem to understand this universe by the laws we do know. So the likelihood is that they did not give rise to this universe but rather are new or just a part of the creation and indeed may be elements of creation and existence as well. We clearly need a better understanding of a lot of things.

Hidden dimensions within oneself. The illuminous idea of string theory. That dimensions are all around us, or even within us and everything by the wave of vibration. However, to compare a sociological view of father and son to the natural laws of the universe are quite different. It's not that the old universe (if there was one) didn't understand the new universe, so generated it's own laws to create it's "son" or "daughter". It could be simply described as an extreme amount of pressure and relativity that eventually released ALL energy from it's mass, causing the eruption that is the big bang. It doesn't exactly point to an outside force manipulating the universe to it's own creation.

Now the idea that we came from a collapsing universe (this was the origin of Galactus) is not as popular as it once was because we now know that it is highly unlikely that our universe will collapse, by extension we have no evidence suggesting that this is how this universe came to be either. So the answer seems to be more and more elusive.

Actually, the "first universe" isn't exactly a dying idea. It's more of an idea in conflict going alongside an entropic universe, which our universe may very well face one day. If the universe enters entropy, then there's a chance that the energy that causes our universe to expand will no longer be able to sustain itself, and cause the universe to retract upon itself. The only true convincing evidence of it at all is the observation and charting of galaxies that move away from each other at around an even pace. We can even map the direction they move to a large degree and give it some form of shape, offering that galaxies are moving in certain directions, unless otherwise affected by some other force. (Usually the gravity of another galaxy.) This doesn't mean we even have 12% of our galaxies mapped, but the ones we do support this. And like in most sciences, a sample usually reflects the whole in some large way.

Though I'll agree on elusiveness since we relatively have little to go on.

Einstein himself died unable to complete what has come to be called the Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything. Other proponents are like string theory but that is also inadequate. Now the reason it is so hard to use the laws to explain exisitence is in my opinion probably due to what I said ealier they are not the cause but are elments in the creation istself.

String theory didn't really try to tie all other theories together. You COULD say proponent, but that's really not too accurate. Of course, there may be NO grand unified theory to explain all the other theories. The four fundamental elements of the universe are part of the great unified theory, and if there were some force to guide and construct each and every last one of those, then THAT would be heavy evidence to support it. So while many believe in a theory like that, there's very little in the way of supportive evidence. Which is really fine, most science is found on hunches. Though, if the Christian God existed, THAT would be the personification of Einstein's theory there. Since all would come from, end within, and be part of him.

Now you said we can only talk about beginnings, well the thing is that for this universe given the new accelerating observations there may be no end. We will it seems expand forever. Eventually then space will keep expanding like a balloon with galaxies within that balloon receding further and further from each other until they can no longer see each other.

Galaxies will ALWAYS be able to see each other. Light from galaxies is so bright and large in quantity that eventually one galaxy at the extreme end of the universe WILL see the other. It may be a glimmer, but it will be there. And while it would make logical sense the universe can't expand forever, we don't know, since we don't know what the universe expands into, or if it does at all. The universe may be elliptical for all we know.

I think that this clinches something for me. this is not a cycle we are in at all but rather this universe is a unique creation with a specific and identifiable future that without outside intervention will have no ending at all. The laws that operate in our universe do not seem to be taking it towards any kind of rebirth at all.

All things inside of the universe function in a cycle, that would lend to the thought that the universe as a macroscopic thing would function the same way. But since there's really no other thing like it to compare it with, or to observe, or catalogue, it's really nothing but speculation. However, to think of it as some form of "unique creation" devoid of it's own laws for the most part is more philosophical than it would be physical. As for the universe not showing signs? Give it a chance. The universe is only 13 billion years old. That's it. The universe, if functioning like every other celestial body, will take BILLIONS more before it even reaches it's peak. So to say that it doesn't show a sign is not really accurate, since the universe has nothing to be compared against.

Now this is the thing, if no law exists to initiate the cycle then it is reasonabe to assume there is no cycle and if there is no cycle something else outside of a set system of laws initiated the universe that we do see.

If no law exists, you're right. But there's no knowledge, nobody was at the beginning of time, and so it's not recorded. And we haven't mapped out or explored nearly enough of our universe to know. But it wouldn't make it exactly reasonable to assume that an event that goes above and beyond a universe's own nature to cause the creation of universe. Now, if you mean the MATTER in a universe, then there's zero explanation for that.

Interestingly enough the origin of Galactus actually does not work in the universe that we see based on the most recent obsevations.

If you mean someone could survive the collapse of another universe by a flaming telepathic build up, conjoined to the sentience of the former universe to be born into this universe to make sure that never happened again? Yeah. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a former universe.

Base on my arguments above I don't even have to argue on Intelligent Mechanics whatever that is, what we are observing is clearly pointing to something outside of a known system of things triggering the existence of this universe. Given what we know and now see that is just a logical conclusion.

Your arguments above don't really support nor deny it more than an objective view and thought. Since there's no evidence to support it one way or the other.

God being the one that did it is another argument and while I certainly believe in God that is a seperate discussion. God is clearly from what we know of the Christian God not bound by the laws we are bound by.

Exactly, that's why science usually wouldn't try and factor him into a scientific theory. No scientific question of modern age has been started with, "What if God..."

I have always been fascinated with how much science goes into the comic books but never thought I would have this discussion on SHH lol.

Actually, the "science" in comic books seems hit and miss for the most part. They try to be scientific, and observe laws and major theories, and usually ignore several more of the same. But it is fun.

Nevertheless Mistress Gluon there is much more out there that is going on and the great thing about it is we live in an era where we are probably going to find the answers, one way or another.

That's something all physicists like myself and other scientists look forward to.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Just wanted to elaborate here Mistress, (I assume you use mistress cause you are married right) I probably should not have used the term vacuum as that has given the wrong impression. This energy is actually everywhere, even right in front of your hand. It pervades every area of space and indeed is acting as a counter to the force of gravity. without it there would probably be a big crunch as the force of gravity would eventually overwhelm the energy that caused the universe to explode outwards during the big bang and inflation.

Mistress because Gluon alone sounded weird, and Mister was right out of the question for obvious reasons. The energy you refer to would most likely be called universal quantum energy. The basic, most underlying simple energy that flows throughout the universe. And really, there is zero to little proof for that. This energy is usually depicted by religions as being a spiritual energy. Science doesn't really observe an energy that can't be read, or have actual affects to until discovery. But gravity isn't countered by some force really, except for other celestial body gravity. It's why the tide rolls in when the moon is close. Or why a moon around Jupiter has actual open glaciers (or something like them). Heck, the moon's gravity plays a MAJOR role in our very existance from a science view. Without the moon, mankind would never have existed. However, there is another way of looking at it. If there was no energy to counteract, then the universe could continue to expand without interruption.

When you blow up a balloon if you don't tie it off it contracts. It was thought that the energy used to inflate the universe was finite. Thus you would have to tie it off in order to stop it from contracting. So everyone knew since the Big Bang was discovered that contraction was possible.

But that would imply that there IS an energy that "inflates" the universe. Where there is no open holes for it, and if the universe were already filled with so much energy, the holes would only allow it to escape. Though a white hole might suggest otherwise. But the leading theory for those, would say they are connected to black holes, and only eject matter that black holes take in. But white holes are merely conjecture, as none are known yet to exist.

We know the universe is not tied off or there would be no further expansion like with a balloon. We discovered expansion meaning the energy that created expansion was still at work, hence the death of the steady state theory. However it was thought to be just a leftover effect from the intial explosion of the universe into existence.

Balloon's physical holes are explained above. Air is in and out at the same point. If it's open, and the pressure outside is less than inside, it escapes. But if the pressure INSIDE is less or equal, then there's no expansion, the outer atmospheric pressure just crushes the balloon. It's why they don't inflate themselves. However, the universe simply doesn't need energy coming in from the outside. We still may merely be in it's first stage of growth. Or more likely, the energy in the universe is self sufficient, and simply expanding to it's neutral point.

The big surprise was discovering that the balloon is expanding at an accelerating rate. That means the thing that started the expansion is still blowing and vigorously impacting the universe. That is what vacuum energy really is, it is still acting on the universe.

The universe actually has shown little to no proof that it grows at an accelerated rate past it's initial growth rate since the galaxies movements are fairly consistent.

The reason things don't all move in the same direction is that at the local level gravity overpowers this energy but at the cosmic level this force is overpowering gravity. Both forces are at work but on earth we are stuck on the surface but on the galactic level our sun, moon, the earth and our galaxy is receding from most galaxies.

on a galactic level the galaxies are escaping from each other, they need fuel to do this, that energy is being provided by what I call vacuum energy. others call it quintesence, others dark/invisible/hidden/unknown energy.

Or... if there were a huge explosion moving outward in all directions at the beginning of time, and the universe followed Newton's very first law of physics (which is still accepted to this day concerning a no atmosphere environment like outer space), they would just keep going in that direction, not requiring any more energy to do so, since no other force or energy has stopped it.

And the "other" energy, if so powerful to do what it is you imply, SHOULD be measurable and consistent with said measurements. But you also imply it's omnipresent, which NO energy in the universe even hints at aside from philosophical energies that stem usually from religions.

It is the principle of the shuttle going to space, at a certain point above the earth we escape gravity, to do this we have to achieve escape velocity.

We need fuel to do it.

I really dont' see what you mean unless you're relating to my talks about shuttles and rockets. In which escape velocity, the speed at which the object can outpull gravity, is totally reachable. But really has little to do with faster than light travel.

 

[Kelly]

All I can say is .... wow.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

LOL, I'm not a dude, and that was a joke MG. I apologize if it was taken in any way other than just alittle fun. I actually think my studies are more useful, BUT thats the way most teachers are with what they teach. I actually think the 2 go hand in hand, teaching and learning, with neither carrying more weight than the other. The best teachers are those that are still able to learn, and you have the knowledge well in hand when you can teach it. So to me both are important.

Again, sorry didn't mean for anyone to take my post in any way, but fun.

You're a femme too? AWESOME!!

XD And in relevance to current standards of today, your studies are WAAAAY more useful. Because if social science fails, then there's no way people like I will ever get the chance to exploit all that science has to offer. We'll be dead way before then. x.x

I remember I had to "substitute teach" for my class. College class projects like that SUUUUCK. Anyways, when I did that, I realized how much more information goes in and out of my head. It's tons more of mental excercise than just learning and taking notes.

Still, godspeed and such. Maybe our sciences will one day benefit someone. lol

 

[Hunter Rider]

If i wasn't confident in my own self id be way intimidated by the level of female intelligence in here right now..........what ?

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

If i wasn't confident in my own self id be way intimidated by the level of female intelligence in here right now..........what ?

lol That was one of my favorite classmates a few semesters back. He was so convinced he was hot stuff until I SLAMMED him in a physics "debate". He was never the same. And became mean towards his girlfriend. You better not get mean towards your girl!!

 

[Hunter Rider]

lol That was one of my favorite classmates a few semesters back. He was so convinced he was hot stuff until I SLAMMED him in a physics "debate". He was never the same. And became mean towards his girlfriend. You better not get mean towards your girl!!

Oh i will never even dream of getting into a physics debate with you,i can see how i would die a horrible death in one post lol

and i'm always nice to the ladies

oh and my what at the end was counter to my proposed self confidence

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Oh i will never even dream of getting into a physics debate with you,i can see how i would die a horrible death in one post lol

and i'm always nice to the ladies

oh and my what at the end was counter to my proposed self confidence

lol Nothing. It's 1:35 AM here. I'm tired. x.x

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

As a former physics teacher, I have to add my 2 cents . . .






Trying to relate comic books to real science is like putting me in a thong . . .



. . . you might cram me in there, but it's not going to fit and it CERTAINLY isn't going to look pretty.


Some things just shouldn't be combined.

 

[Kelly]

If i wasn't confident in my own self id be way intimidated by the level of female intelligence in here right now..........what ?

Intelligence is not all you should be afraid of.....*smiles sweetly*

 

[highguard]

And the "other" energy, if so powerful to do what it is you imply, SHOULD be measurable and consistent with said measurements. But you also imply it's omnipresent, which NO energy in the universe even hints at aside from philosophical energies that stem usually from religions.

Actually this is a scientific puzzle that the leading cosmologists are all eagerly trying to solve.

It sounds like you think that they are religious implications and I would only smile here but the cosmologists looking into this thing are not associating it with religion at all.

Here is a link at space.com that delves into the puzzle that is before them and us.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_expansion_030410.html

 

[highguard]

lol Nothing. It's 1:35 AM here. I'm tired. x.x

Well I have really enjoyed talking to you. And I won't keep you up any more, Miss

 

[highguard]

Intelligence is not all you should be afraid of.....*smiles sweetly*

I have to run but inteligent women are very umm...... appealing you know. That bookish, glasses wearing image with the bag of books thats too big for her always grabs my heart, lol.

Well I will have to get off the boards and go do something else.

See you people around

 

[gerbstat]

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Actually this is a scientific puzzle that the leading cosmologists are all eagerly trying to solve.

It sounds like you think that they are religious implications and I would only smile here but the cosmologists looking into this thing are not associating it with religion at all.

Here is a link at space.com that delves into the puzzle that is before them and us.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_expansion_030410.html

I had actually heard of this in passing once. For the most part, it sounded like heresay and hunch.

However, that didn't say that "dark" energy cancells out gravity, nor that it said that it occupies everywhere. It just says this "dark" energy (if it exists, since it seems every elusive as the graviton) takes the PLACE of gravity, where it can't be effective any longer. Of course, this article just makes it sound like this "dark" energy is more or less the left over of the big bang. More like universal gravity. Some form of gravity that comes about from lack of mass gravity. Of course, if there is some form of connection that the energy here is related to the expansion of the universe, and causes supernovae, then it could easily be said that the energy from the supernovae is altered, and becomes this sort of energy that accelerates the formation of the universe. Several of our suns are already billions and billions of years old, and are ready to die as it stands. Or dark energy stars, which are a conclusive replacement for black holes could simply provide these energies. As more suns die, their energy can be reconstituted as this, and provide this energy to the universe in a similar way a sun's gravity does.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Now now, Mistress. No need to get cranky with me just because the Vision hasn’t called you for a few weeks. Its only Thursday, and plenty of time for him to call before the weekend. You can hardly blame me that hes been carrying on with that Scarlet Witch character. I’m simply concerned that it will all end in tears for you.

In any event, I’m glad you brought up the grape, because its purple (assuming it’s a Concord grape) and that brings us back to Galactus, grapes, the speed of sound and high school physics…

Ooookay.

Now, I'm less concerned with your overall physics statements but quite concerned over your lack of rigor and the ambiguity of some of your specific statements. One of my college physics professors said "You must describe things accurately and without ambiguity" which of course, is why physics involves a lot of math and equations. He was Jamaican with a very thick accent, but I got the idea. Prose often doesn't convey the precise meaning of physical phenomena, which is what I'm getting at by poking fun at you in a good natured way. Or in a bitter, hateful way, I guess it depends on how you take it.

All humans contain bias. Especially when talking. My physics lacks those, my personality doesn't, same as yours. As you've stated.

For example, what do you mean by "Size and energy have always been a relationship based on the atomic structure, and initial of the initial object." ???? WHAT relationship? The initial WHAT of the initial object??

You DO know that structures can only maintain structure to certain sizes, and that sizes can only be maintained by atomic bond energy? Overpass one or the other, and the structure can NOT hold up. Size and energy. They literally have to work together. The more energy in the structure, the bigger the structure must be. Hence, the initial energy and mass must be in a relationship of the initial object. Seeing how once you add to one or the other, they change, or, are not initial anymore. Then they become varient objects, masses, and energies.

Secondly, you state "Yeah. Electrons move extremely slow, until super charged. Their the only things in the universe that can approach the speed of light. THEY are THRUSTED in a particle acceleration machine."'
Well, I'm sorry I brought up the fact that electrons and other elementary particles are accelerated to velocities near the speed of light in a particle accelerator such as CERN, SLAC or Fermi Lab. It was obviously unfair, but you never said I couldn't use a particle accelerator - you just stated that you couldn't get a mass up to near light speed and brought up the idea that an atom moving at half the speed of light becomes the size of the solar system. Now I'm not arguing that concept - just asking how you chose fifty percent of light speed as a velocity and the "size of the solar system", instead of 75% of light speed and the size of a galaxie. I don't know...is the relationship linear, or would the atom be normal size until 10%, the size of a semi truck from 11%-49% and the size of a solar system at 50%?? You're just not being too clear on the specifics.

'


First off, before you go and remove/put words in my mouth. Notice I said BIGGER than a solar system. Not "equal to without nearly going over or going under." BIGGER. That implies it's mass and volume goes above and beyond a solar system. Some people believe bigger than galaxies. Though I believe an atom would reach it's activation energy WAAAAY before it reaches that size, and break apart into subatomic things. As for your comments toward the accelerator, that doesn't imply that it can keep the constant. It reaches subluminal speeds very temporarily. Far less energy is requires to make things explode at high speeds, rather than carry things to high speeds. And since subatomic particles are nearly indestructible, they're pretty much the only thing that can make the "journey" of atomic destruction so to speak. Using them isn't cheating, but it doesn't help the point you want to make that bigger structures move at high speed velocity.

And finally, what's up with "If not, grapes would be able to move at the speed of sound and beyond with zero problems outside of an atmospheric environment. However, as energy is increased from the force of acceleration, the grape just breaks apart. And since the speed of sound is gregoriously slower than the speed of light."

Why can't a grape move at the speed of sound outside of an atmospheric environment? I’m sure you will agree with me that clearly a grape can survive acceleration due to gravity at 1g (gee, not gram) or approximately 9.8 m/s2. It suffers no ill effects while falling from a tabletop, and usually survives a rapid deacceleration at greater G when it strikes the floor.

A grape can't move due to the constant energy push from a single point to constantly accelerate it. If you "throttle" it like the pa, the grape will just simply explode, since it's atomic structure simply can't absorb that much energy that fast. Like you said with the ion drive, things have to be accelerated gently. However, a grape is only so strong structurally, and if you keep pushing at a point, it breaks apart. It's atomic structure simply can not hold up. It cannot contain that much energy. If it was being pulled along from an outside source that completely surrounds it, and makes it devoid of outside energy influence, then it would work. However,that means the grape is no longer in high speed movement, just something else that it is in.

And the grape doesn't lose a full G of energy falling from the table to the floor. It would have to reach terminal velocity first.

It's terminal velocity, of course in an atmosphere since you're utilizing Earth's gravity, rests at wind resistance. Hence, it will NEVER reach the activation energy point. It will NEVER go fast enough. And taking it to sonic speed would require it to take on the energy from resistance to maintain it's own structure. This would take it to it's activation energy point WELL before that. Which is a super important point that being a physicist, you should know. Activation energy. The energy that a structure needs to obtain before changing in phase or structure. Activation for a physical alteration, or a phase alteration.

Now let’s assume we have both a perfectly normal concord grape and a perfectly normal Galactus, except that he is only twice the size and mass of the grape. We will refer to him as a “Galactite”. You may choose to call him “Tiny Galactus” if you wish. Now lets make the following assumptions:

Both objects are initially at rest (Vi = 0)
Both objects are some where in deep space, where the atmosphere and effects of gravity from other celestial bodies are negligible (no atmosphere means no terminal velocity implications and no external gravitational force to overcome).

Now let’s attach some sort of cosmic bottle rocket to one side of both objects. The bottle rocket will thrust both objects in the same direction along parallel paths, at constant acceleration of 1 g.

According to high school (read Newtonian) physics the velocity of both objects can be described as a function of time and acceleration. That would give us

Vt = Vi +at

where
Vi = the initial velocity = 0 m/s
a = acceleration = 1g = 9.8 m/s2
t = elapsed time in seconds
Vt = velocity at t seconds, which we will set equal to 340 m/s or the approximate speed of sound in air at sea level. Actually the speed of sound in near complete vacuo is non-existent. Remember that in space “No one can hear you scream”?

So we have the Silver Surfer light the cosmic fuse and wonder if we can get the grape and Galactite up to a velocity equivalent to that of the speed of sound at sea level or 340 m/s.

So we’ve got

340 m/s = 0 m/s + (9.8 m/s2 ) t s

or t = 340 m/s
9.8 m/s2

or t = 34.69 s, or about a half a minute.

Now this is no different than dropping the grape and Galactite from a tall building on Earth with no atmosphere. In reality it wouldn't reach the speed of sound on earth, because the wind resistance limits the velocity. The velocity won't make the grape fall apart, its the acceleration, and clearly, we've already established that a grape can withstand a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s2....we all do it every day!

Actually, the grape never even REACHES 9.8 most of the time. If you drop it off a building, it would, and it would splat. But we already had the same idea with the constant acceleration of a point. So that point is moot.

And this is where my last comment was important. The grape isn't being accelerated, it's being PULLED by a force that doesn't require a point of acceleration. Two extremely different ideas and effects.

Note that the difference in mass between the grape and Galactite does not impact this calculation, just as it made

no difference when Galileo dropped two unequal masses from the leaning tower of Pisa.

This works in a gravity area. You can't use a deep space equation, then relate it to a gravity situation. And in a large drop area, the two unequal masses would eventually hit the ground at different times. In space, with ZERO atmosphere, but with a large enough object to create gravity wells, THEN they would hit at the same time.

But that has little to do with actually accellerating an object to near light speeds. It would be logical to think that there is a natural barrier outside of an environment for activation energy. Chances are an object can't naturally move over that, or it would just cease to be. The mass is only in effect at high speed. Things on Earth are rather slow in comparison to the speeds some things move in the universe, and so do not show the same relativistic effects. But like I said, the fastest moving thing on Earth only moves at five percent of the speed of light, and that's fairly temporary.

Just remember that all physics can be fun, but life can be a *****. Oh - the Vision just dropped by (totally wasted again) and said he'll be giving you a call about this weekend.

Jerk better bring back my Jenga.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Well I have really enjoyed talking to you. And I won't keep you up any more, Miss

I'm always up to talk. I have a very sporradic sleeping pattern. I can't stay asleep for more than two or three hours.

 

[highguard]

I had actually heard of this in passing once. For the most part, it sounded like heresay and hunch.

However, that didn't say that "dark" energy cancells out gravity, nor that it said that it occupies everywhere. It just says this "dark" energy (if it exists, since it seems every elusive as the graviton) takes the PLACE of gravity, where it can't be effective any longer.

Well here is a quote from the article

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Until then, astronomers had generally believed that the cosmic expansion was gradually slowing down, due to the gravitational tugs that individual galaxies exert on one another. But the supernova results implied that some mysterious force was acting against the pull of gravity, causing galaxies to fly away from each other at ever greater speeds.It was a stunning realization."[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This article was published in 2003, in 1998 it was hearsay, currently this is the mainstream theory of what is happening with the universe. In fact this is the biggest puzzle facing cosmologists as it has implications for the origin as well as the universes's future.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Note the last part "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]It was a stunning realization."[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]It is stunning not because of the aceleration in and of itself but in the implications to many theories on how we got here and what the future holds for this universe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The reason it is huge is because it points to a situation in which the likelihood of contraction is slim. So now we have a beginning of the universe but possibly no end. This is what I was talking about when I said there appears to be no cyclical renewal in this universe. Honestly I am not that surprised but I am not going to get into why.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]So the possibility of Galactus emerging from a collapsed universe just took a hit. The universe shows no signs whatsoever of collapsing. In fact it shows evidence to the contrary, its expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. And we now have 8 billion years of it. Thats a long time even in a young universe.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Suffice it to say that without a cycle we have what I call an open system, existence as described by these new observations is not self sustaining.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In fact the accelerating universe is a gloomy concept. I said in an earlier post that eventually we would not even see the other galaxies and the reason for that is this; eventually the acceleration of the galaxies away from each other will approach the speed of light, if you can believe such a thing.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will happen because the acceleration is speeding up, so eventually the light from other galaxies will not get to us because we are moving away from it at the same speed it is coming to us. It is like a relay race. If the recieving athlete is moving as fast as the guy bringing the baton they will never make contact.[/FONT]



If we were alive then when we look up into the night sky there would be no other galaxies we could see but ours.



This dark energy however is totally undetectable except for its affect. It may indeed be some form of gravity such as antigravity. The thing is that it seemed to kick start this acceleration about 8 billion years ago without any apparent explanation that we can currently detect, no one knows why, we can't explain it and we can't predict what it is, we can't harness it and worse we don't even know what it really is.

So this is what we have, we now know that we live in a universe that has 4 known forces; the strong and weak force, electromagnetism and gravity and now a fith force whose impact is observable but whose properites and atributes are completely unknown.

Nothing to lose sleep over but it means that all the theories that were so elegantly created to explain what we see around us and in the heavens may one day all need radical modifications.


Its the situation with carl sagan's steady state theory all over again. As that theory went the way of the dodo some current cosmological theories may go as well in light of the new observations. Even Einstein's relativity treatment may need serious modifications.


I will say that having seen this before there really are no surprises here. It is now clear that we are missing something that is very important.



These are exciting times for cosmology if only because there is a puzzle to be solved.



And you must be up really late its 12:30 am here

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Actually, gravitons are more or less theoretical too. And if this dark force is anything like that, it'll probably be near impossible to ever notice. And if it's like other dark substances, it'll be a LOOONG time before it's even shown to be absolutely real.

Though missing something? I'd say it's just more of a puzzle piece, not exactly something that disproves other things. Though, I'll agree. If this turns out to be true, then modifications will need to be made, since conventional gravity wouldn't work as well anymore.

But to call a random event an act of an unknown energy that hasn't happened again is something of a jump. Scientists love jumps.

It's already seven thirty AM here.

 

[highguard]

Actually, gravitons are more or less theoretical too. And if this dark force is anything like that, it'll probably be near impossible to ever notice. And if it's like other dark substances, it'll be a LOOONG time before it's even shown to be absolutely real.

Though missing something? I'd say it's just more of a puzzle piece, not exactly something that disproves other things. Though, I'll agree. If this turns out to be true, then modifications will need to be made, since conventional gravity wouldn't work as well anymore.

But to call a random event an act of an unknown energy that hasn't happened again is something of a jump. Scientists love jumps.

It's already seven thirty AM here.

whoa mistress then I should really let you get some sleep, I surely need mine. I was refreshed by the discussion though. I had forgotten how much I enjoyed talking about these puzzles. I am reminded again of why I liked the fantastic four so much.

As a young man my favorite was Johnny Storm but I think I actually admire Richards more.

And only 2 hrs of sleep at a time, you are a rock, I can't do that, lol.