Isaac Newton Was Full Of Shit!

All these calculations and stipulations he made for the planets and other cosmic entities were done without any description of the medium they travelled in, other than it was a "vacuum". Aren't we just accepting his explanations because we haven't got a better one?

This whole idea of space as a "vacuum", pisses me off anyway. Wouldn't this entail our universe being in an enclosed space? If I had my own vacuumed contraption and somehow flicked a frozen pea into it, would it go into its own pretty little orbit, or would I need some of that gravity stuff? Why doesn't an object with no momentum just "sink to the bottom" of our universe?

Go on, tell me it doesn't have a "bottom"!

Curse you, Universe, and your complicated mysteries! :mad:

No U

Love and kisses,

Isaac Newton

OMG physicist-pwn.

Hey Newton, way to come to the erroneous conclusion that gravity travels instantaneously rather than at light speed!

Hey--that whole "Einstein" thing is a fad. Pretty soon (any day now) they'll figure out that there is an ether and that I was right all along. Oh sure, there's some limited apps for that E=MC[sup:137e7cir]2[/sup:137e7cir] stuff, but overall, my laws of motion rulez and Albert E. droolz.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac Newton

Time and space are absolutes, doink doink

---

Um, no. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac_Newton

Hey--that whole "Einstein" thing is a fad. Pretty soon (any day now) they'll figure out that there is an ether and that I was right all along. Oh sure, there's some limited apps for that E=MC[sup:21quorwh]2[/sup:21quorwh] stuff, but overall, my laws of motion rulez and Albert E. droolz.

---

Sez you, Newton, you wig-wearing pussy. You couldn't have laced Bert's boots, nevermind understood his E=MC[sup:21quorwh]2[/sup:21quorwh] theorem, you great big poser!

No U!

All your relativity R belong to us.

Anachronism!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac_Newton

No U!

---

Isaac, u r moar pwnd, just admit it!

the dude got his arse handed to him by fruit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Go on, tell me it doesn't have a "bottom"!

---

OK. It doesn't have a "bottom".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Go on, tell me it doesn't have a "bottom"!

---

OK. It doesn't have a "bottom".

---

You'll be telling me it doesn't have a top next! :dub:

[quote=ivan astikov]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "ivan astikov":umaxtm3c

Go on, tell me it doesn't have a "bottom"!

---

OK. It doesn't have a "bottom".

---

You'll be telling me it doesn't have a top next! :dub:[/quote:umaxtm3c]
Your powers of precognition are nothing short of spectacular. It doesn't have a top.

Does it have a "middle"? Aha, got you there. Where did it all start then?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Does it have a "middle"? Aha, got you there. Where did it all start then?

---

Over there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Does it have a "middle"? Aha, got you there. Where did it all start then?

---

Over there.

---

See, it's this sort of vagueness I am objecting to! :mad:

[quote=ivan astikov]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "ivan astikov":33079wh4

Does it have a "middle"? Aha, got you there. Where did it all start then?

---

Over there.

---

See, it's this sort of vagueness I am objecting to! :mad:[/quote:33079wh4]
What vagueness? I'm pointing to a very specific location. Over there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

What vagueness? I'm pointing to a very specific location. Over there.

---

Coordinates, damnit. I want coordinates. Whatever happened to precision in the scientific process? :roll:

6 degrees north, 47 degrees east.

Right there. Can't you see it, shining in the sun?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vison

6 degrees north, 47 degrees east.

Right there. Can't you see it, shining in the sun?

---

Point with your finger. That might help!

I am pointing with my finger.

Right, I see it now.

So, isn't there an 'above' and a 'below' that middle? If 'everything' was expanding outwards at the same time, it could only make a spherical shape, surely, and from an outsiders perspective it would have a top and a bottom, like the Earth has a north and south pole?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Does it have a "middle"? Aha, got you there. Where did it all start then?

---

Yes the universe does have a middle. In fact all it has is a middle. And it started everywhere all at once. 'Cause when it started everywhere was all the same place. So any where that vision points is correct.

On the bright side: you really are the center of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Right, I see it now.

So, isn't there an 'above' and a 'below' that middle? If 'everything' was expanding outwards at the same time, it could only make a spherical shape, surely, and from an outsiders perspective it would have a top and a bottom, like the Earth has a north and south pole?

---

The analogy given is dots on the surface of a balloon. When the balloon is tiny they are all at the same place, more or less. Blow up the balloon and the dots spread apart. Now, if the entire universe is contained within the surface of the balloon, every point is the middle, the universe expands away from every point and there is not top or bottom. There are now boundaries either, everything loops back on itself extradimensionally.

Balloons are awesome.

Kind of like an old video game where you fly off one side of the screen and back onto the other side. But so big even light doesn't have time to go all the way around.
When you look out in space you can never see an edge because the edge is future, all you can see is the beginning.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...b96308c739.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3504/...8afbce1874.jpg

The circle of the open end is a 2D slice of a 3D now.

This is making so much sense now. When all those over-the-top villains are doing their best to acquire some ultimate force to initiate the destruction of the entire universe, they're all just trying to pop other people's balloons.

Bad childhoods -> super villains.

BRB. I'm going back in time to give Kefka some smiley face balloons and prevent a World of Ruin.

M'kay guys. So 0 was the singularity, 1 was the rapid expansion of some gaseous proto-matter, 2 was the aggregating together of some of this matter, 3 was the formation of galaxies, and 4 and 5, the formation of stars and planets. Meanwhile, the distance from the 'beginning point' is getting greater all the time.

Is this a reasonable simplification?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

So, isn't there an 'above' and a 'below' that middle? If 'everything' was expanding outwards at the same time, it could only make a spherical shape, surely, and from an outsiders perspective it would have a top and a bottom, like the Earth has a north and south pole?

---

It doesn't. The Earth only has poles because it rotates, and the designation of one as top and another as bottom is arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

M'kay guys. So 0 was the singularity, 1 was the rapid expansion of some gaseous proto-matter, 2 was the aggregating together of some of this matter, 3 was the formation of galaxies, and 4 and 5, the formation of stars and planets. Meanwhile, the distance from the 'beginning point' is getting greater all the time.

Is this a reasonable simplification?

---

Kinda but not quite. It goes something like:
1) Big Bang, probably
2) Pure Energy
3) Crude matter begins to form (loose quarks, etc)
4) subatomic particles form (protons, neutrons)
5) electrically neutral matter forms - electrons being captured by protons
6) matter begins to clump together in big gaseous clouds
7) clouds form things like stars and peanuts
8) People invent computers, FTL and fire, in that order
9) Matter demands representation and legal protection - threatens strike
10) Pure maths dissolves some sodium, becomes slightly impure maths
11) statistics no longer allowed, under pain of birth

As for the distance from the "beginning" it's more accurate to say that each point is moving away from every other point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

M'kay guys. So 0 was the singularity, 1 was the rapid expansion of some gaseous proto-matter, 2 was the aggregating together of some of this matter, 3 was the formation of galaxies, and 4 and 5, the formation of stars and planets. Meanwhile, the distance from the 'beginning point' is getting greater all the time.

Is this a reasonable simplification?

---

Kinda but not quite. It goes something like:
1) Big Bang, probably
2) Pure Energy
3) Crude matter begins to form (loose quarks, etc)
4) subatomic particles form (protons, neutrons)
5) electrically neutral matter forms - electrons being captured by protons
6) matter begins to clump together in big gaseous clouds
7) clouds form things like stars and peanuts
8) People invent computers, FTL and fire, in that order
9) Matter demands representation and legal protection - threatens strike
10) Pure maths dissolves some sodium, becomes slightly impure maths
11) statistics no longer allowed, under pain of birth

---

12) Fenris is born, thus validating the great universal plan and proving the maxim that "Systems in motion inevitably tend towards being awesomely groovy."

13) Fenris dies, and maximum entropy follows quickly, leading to the destruction of the universe.

My grand pappy passed away on account of entropy. And I don't take kindly to people making sport of those thermodynamico laws you think are so funny.

Yeah, fuck you, Newton! Gravity sucks! If it wasn't for you and that damned apple I wouldn't have to worry about tripping and falling flat on my face!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

2) Pure Energy

---

Great, now I can't get that stupid video out of my head. Grumble grumble.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderThis

Yeah, fuck you, Newton! Gravity sucks! If it wasn't for you and that damned apple I wouldn't have to worry about tripping and falling flat on my face!

---

Don't be dissin' Gravity man. Gravity is da shit. He told the Universe to get bent and the Universe did it. Man even Chuck Fuckin' Norris don't mess wit Gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderThis

Yeah, fuck you, Newton! Gravity sucks! If it wasn't for you and that damned apple I wouldn't have to worry about tripping and falling flat on my face!

---

Don't be dissin' Gravity man. Gravity is da shit. He told the Universe to get bent and the Universe did it. Man even Chuck Fuckin' Norris don't mess wit Gravity.

---

As one of Chuck's rep's, he has asked me to inform you to "remember that, when there is an incoming asteroid and you need someone to roundhouse it from the space station back where it belongs... pussies!".

Hey Newton, you fucking alchemist! How do you explain the electroweak force, and why it has resisted attempts to be unified with gravitation? What about Hawking radiation, or the interaction of branes in 11-space? Where is your suckoffsopher's stone now?