I think the plan is to just let the universe succumb to heat death before any issues are addressed in this game.
Forum > Suggestions > Do something
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I think the plan is to just let the universe succumb to heat death before any issues are addressed in this game.
Damn... I hate heat death.
I think the plan is to just let the universe succumb to heat death before any issues are addressed in this game.
Damn... I hate heat death.
Originally posted by BDizzle80
Please explain this concept with a wikapedia link, plz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Please explain this concept with a wikapedia link, plz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I think the plan is to just let the universe succumb to heat death before any issues are addressed in this game.
Astrophysically in terms of practicality the universe will likely die due to expansion and not heat. Which, given the decision to make GLB2 makes it a fine analogy sir.
I think the plan is to just let the universe succumb to heat death before any issues are addressed in this game.
Astrophysically in terms of practicality the universe will likely die due to expansion and not heat. Which, given the decision to make GLB2 makes it a fine analogy sir.
Edited by Donk3yMan on Jun 3, 2014 11:56:12
Originally posted by The Avenger
WHAT'S Astrophysically?
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
WHAT'S Astrophysically?
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
Clinton
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jamiam73~Cult~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Aren't we also assuming heat by chemothermal is the only derivation? Which is the philosophy of the thesis. If you consider the neutral state, it comes down to similar theories and their guiding principal that... Something happened. For big bang it is obvious, but what was the state before that?
The same question I ask of the neutrality implied in the heat death theory, what was before that? Why did it change?
It makes more sense to assume the cyclical theory stating that the universe has infinitely times over, both contracted until a state of big bang and then expanded out to its point of neutral expansion. Those thresholds of change in this account for far more variety in applied energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Aren't we also assuming heat by chemothermal is the only derivation? Which is the philosophy of the thesis. If you consider the neutral state, it comes down to similar theories and their guiding principal that... Something happened. For big bang it is obvious, but what was the state before that?
The same question I ask of the neutrality implied in the heat death theory, what was before that? Why did it change?
It makes more sense to assume the cyclical theory stating that the universe has infinitely times over, both contracted until a state of big bang and then expanded out to its point of neutral expansion. Those thresholds of change in this account for far more variety in applied energy.
Originally posted by Clinton
Aren't we also assuming heat by chemothermal is the only derivation? Which is the philosophy of the thesis. If you consider the neutral state, it comes down to similar theories and their guiding principal that... Something happened. For big bang it is obvious, but what was the state before that?
The same question I ask of the neutrality implied in the heat death theory, what was before that? Why did it change?
It makes more sense to assume the cyclical theory stating that the universe has infinitely times over, both contracted until a state of big bang and then expanded out to its point of neutral expansion. Those thresholds of change in this account for far more variety in applied energy.
There does not have to be a state before that according to many leading string theories. The total sum of matter can cancel with the sum total of negative gravitational energy, popping universes into being from a previous state of nothing, or via colliding universes.
The big crunch is unlikely due to the very large amount of extra mass in the universe (including dark matter) that would be required to bring all the superclusters back together. Further detriment to that theory is the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Of course, until we discover the particulars of dark energy it will be impossible to derive the exact nature of this acceleration. Still, there is currently no evidence pointing to such a doomsday scenario and it is not really a consideration by any of the leading experts.
Aren't we also assuming heat by chemothermal is the only derivation? Which is the philosophy of the thesis. If you consider the neutral state, it comes down to similar theories and their guiding principal that... Something happened. For big bang it is obvious, but what was the state before that?
The same question I ask of the neutrality implied in the heat death theory, what was before that? Why did it change?
It makes more sense to assume the cyclical theory stating that the universe has infinitely times over, both contracted until a state of big bang and then expanded out to its point of neutral expansion. Those thresholds of change in this account for far more variety in applied energy.
There does not have to be a state before that according to many leading string theories. The total sum of matter can cancel with the sum total of negative gravitational energy, popping universes into being from a previous state of nothing, or via colliding universes.
The big crunch is unlikely due to the very large amount of extra mass in the universe (including dark matter) that would be required to bring all the superclusters back together. Further detriment to that theory is the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Of course, until we discover the particulars of dark energy it will be impossible to derive the exact nature of this acceleration. Still, there is currently no evidence pointing to such a doomsday scenario and it is not really a consideration by any of the leading experts.
Outlaw Dogs
offline
offline
So after all the great minds of GLB got together to demand a course of action, and all they came up with is to destroy the universe through heat death? All I have to say is: http://i.imgur.com/Xh3sw8i.png
Originally posted by euchrid
Originally posted by reddogrw
for GLB Classic?
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, reddogrw, than are dreamt of in GLB Classic.
so that is a no
Originally posted by reddogrw
for GLB Classic?
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, reddogrw, than are dreamt of in GLB Classic.
so that is a no
Originally posted by Donk3yMan
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
Just clearly DEFINE Astrophysically to us and i will be on my way. I can define "the" to you in Websters. I just want to see the same. That is all, lets see it.
PS, why does Astrophysically come up as an auto spelling error on my screen just like it does for words like LOL or ROFL?
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
Just clearly DEFINE Astrophysically to us and i will be on my way. I can define "the" to you in Websters. I just want to see the same. That is all, lets see it.
PS, why does Astrophysically come up as an auto spelling error on my screen just like it does for words like LOL or ROFL?
Originally posted by The Avenger
Originally posted by Donk3yMan
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
Just clearly DEFINE Astrophysically to us and i will be on my way. I can define "the" to you in Websters. I just want to see the same. That is all, lets see it.
PS, why does Astrophysically come up as an auto spelling error on my screen just like it does for words like LOL or ROFL?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrophysics
Because children like yourself rely too much on the computer to do everything for them and don't know how to think for themselves
Originally posted by Donk3yMan
Dude... I know, and you know, and the Casual Pro forum certainly knows, that I am so very much more intelligent than you. But, do you really want to go advertising it in more public arenas?
Just clearly DEFINE Astrophysically to us and i will be on my way. I can define "the" to you in Websters. I just want to see the same. That is all, lets see it.
PS, why does Astrophysically come up as an auto spelling error on my screen just like it does for words like LOL or ROFL?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrophysics
Because children like yourself rely too much on the computer to do everything for them and don't know how to think for themselves
Originally posted by The Avenger
WHAT'S Astrophysically?
Astro - The name of a cartoon dog on the Jetsons.
Physically - The act of doing something physical. Ergo, to exert oneself in a form of physical effort.
Therefor, Astrophysically is when a cartoon dog preforms a physical act. Example; "Astro done got all up on that bitch! We gonna have puppies!!!!"
WHAT'S Astrophysically?
Astro - The name of a cartoon dog on the Jetsons.
Physically - The act of doing something physical. Ergo, to exert oneself in a form of physical effort.
Therefor, Astrophysically is when a cartoon dog preforms a physical act. Example; "Astro done got all up on that bitch! We gonna have puppies!!!!"
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
