I didnt like the end. Why if the apes have made it back to earth have exactly the same police uniforms, cities and monuments as humans? I mean lets assume they over threw humans by force, its just seems daft they would emulate our lives exactly. Wouldn't they develop their own society, culture etc? Silly ending imho.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"][QUOTE="-Pred-Alien-"]Its even more sad that these people are denying themselves their human right with idiotic claims like 'socialism is teh evil' and other BS. Socialism has done nothing but made the lives of us Western Europeans better and better.whet40

Health care is not a right. By saying so, you essentially deem that doctors and nurses and their services are slaves to the rest of society. Rights are inalienable traits that are inherent in every human from the moment they come into this world and the moment they leave. Healthcare is something that someone else has to be available to provide. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require nothing but your own ambition and other people respecting these said rights. Demanding someone else to provide to you something that they do not freely enter into agreement is a violent action that infringes on that person's natural rights.

Either way, as a citizen of the UK it is my right to healthcare. Its an agreement between the government and the citizen not the citizen and the doctor. It is up to my elected government to protect and honour my human rights. In that respect, healthcare most certainly IS a right.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

Why doesn't that mean the older something is, the faster it's moving (especially as the light we see gets closer and closer in time to the big bang, where I'm assuming everything was moving much faster -- at least for a while?).

psychobrew

Because the shift in spectrum tells us a lot about the space in between us and the distant galaxy. The light waves are being stretched out as they travel through a universe where space is expanding. They stretch aswell and this is observed by the wavelength of the light being longer than what it would normally be. Larger wavelengths means a 'lower frequency' and so the spectrum is shifted to the red. This means that the galaxy in a an observable sense is moving away from us. The galaxy itself in its part of the universe is not really moving at all, it could be moving towards us but with the space inbetween us stretching. Galaxies less far away appear to be moving away slower because their is less space being stretched. The more space you have between 2 galaxies, the faster they will be moving apart.

Also in 1998 Brian Schmidt led the High-Z SN search programme for type 1a supernovae. When they put together data from many observations they found that distant galaxies and the supernovae they were measuring were actually slightly less bright than what they were expecting. The further the observed supernova, the more this discrepency was observed. The only way this could be explained was if the expansion of the universe was slower in the past. Since then more and data has been collected that supports this idea. An expanding universe that is increasing its rate of expansion.

The doppler effect is a classical way of looking at light but remember, if you were on the galaxy on the far side of the universe, locally, you're not really moving, nearby galaxies are not necessarily moving away. Only those over huge distances appear to be moving away.

You're also right with Blue-shift, the Andromeda galaxy is actually moving straight towards us. At only 2 million light years away it is part of what we call the 'local group' of galaxies. In less than a billion years, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the milkyway. But galaxies billions of light years away always have redshift.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Observing these type 1a supernovae, we have something to measure. Because we know luminosity of the supernovae we can take what we call the apparent luminosity and calculate how far away it is. If we know how far away it is, we can then look at its spectrum and look at how much it has shifted. Using the data on the supernova's redshift, we can build a picture up of the relative speeds away from us compared to their distance from us. Thats the important bit, the further away they are the more they are shifted to the red. The further away they are, the faster they are moving away. Looking at the type 1a supernovae that are over 10 billion light years away and we tell they are moving away from us at incredible speeds.

psychobrew

Why doesn't that mean the older something is, the faster it's moving (especially as the light we see gets closer and closer in time to the big bang, where I'm assuming everything was moving much faster -- at least for a while?).

Because the shift in spectrum tells us a lot about the space in between us and the distant galaxy. The light waves are being stretched out as they travel through a universe where space is expanding. They stretch aswell and this is observed by the wavelength of the light being longer than what it would normally be. Larger wavelengths means a 'lower frequency' and so the spectrum is shifted to the red. This means that the galaxy in a an observable sense is moving away from us. The galaxy itself in its part of the universe is not really moving at all, it could be moving towards us but with the space inbetween us stretching. Galaxies less far away appear to be moving away slower because their is less space being stretched. The more space you have between 2 galaxies, the faster they will be moving apart.

Also in 1998 Brian Schmidt led the High-Z SN search programme for type 1a supernovae. When they put together data from many observations they found that distant galaxies and the supernovae they were measuring were actually slightly less bright than what they were expecting. The further the observed supernova, the more this discrepency was observed. The only way this could be explained was if the expansion of the universe was slower in the past. Since then more and data has been collected that supports this idea. An expanding universe that is increasing its rate of expansion.

I love how Europe is a single country now! :roll:

That being said, there is only a handful of western European nations that have a significant military. In most respects, Europe is out gunned by the USA. However, Europe has never really been full conquered by any sovereign nation. From the Romans to the Nazis, there is just too many different nations/peoples to fight.

The same would apply to the USA, to defeat a nation, you have to do more than defeat its military.

Someone also mentioned that the USA doesnt need to worry about China. While the USA probably has a larger and more sophisticated military than China, you still couldn't say they are nothing to worry about. Think about how costly Iraq and Afghanistan have been in terms of casualties. Then think of a full scale conflict with China.

[QUOTE="curono"]Singularity in plain english means: Dunno what happened but doesnt matter that it makes the argument flawed.Funky_Llama

Actually, singularity is a very good way of explaining the conditions at the centre of a blackhole. It basically means a point at which all the exlusion forces of the nuclei have been overcome, the point at which pauli's exclusion principle is overcome and neutrons are able to occupy the same space. There are some things we do know about a singularity but that its also the point at which classical/modern physics goes out the window to a large extent.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="curono"] Singularity in plain english means: Dunno what happened but doesnt matter that it makes the argument flawed. Let me give you an example. If you have 2 connected bottles, with a hermetic barrier. One filled with a gas and another completely empty. The gas will flow from the filled to the empty one till there is some kind of equilibrium in the gas. The theory says that the push between molecules causes an even distribution. However, if you try to pinpoint which molecule of gas starts the avalanche, or a system to predict which molecule will go first (besides the closest one to the wall), it is impossible. That doesnt mean the theory being flawed. It just means that they met a border where they cant do anything but make a good guess following the theory. Same happens with big bang. The basic structure goes simply well, but there is an absolute border impossible to know. Even science has limitations.curono

We can explain quite accurately right up to a few millionths of a second after the big bang. We do this not by direct observation but by looking at how matter behaves in conditions similar to those during the first fractions of a second after. We do this by looking at the interactions of particles at very high energies, we look at how the forces that hold and atom and its nuclei together. By studying collision after collision, we can build a statistical model of the various forces/ particles and see that at higher and higher energies they begin to behave in a similar way.

Through the better part of a century we have a very accurate model by which we can explain what is going on. Now the type of mathematics we use to explain this is statictics and probability. Like the gas flowing through one end of a bottle to another, we cannot use a precise model of every particle but we can use a statistical model that is actually much better at predicting the outcome of an interaction.

Going back to the conditions of the very early universe, we can lay down some very definite conditions at that time, the unification of the forces, the point at which the forces seperate etc all based on real-world results we observe right here on earth. Further evidence is gained from atmospheric observations of cosmic-ray interations related to gammer ray bursts interating with the upper atmoshere.

Yeah I was backing up what you said. As soon as you use words like uncertainty or probability, they use that as if you're not sure. What it gives us though is very definite limits on what we can know and through that some very interesting results come thorugh.

This thread now needs some shrodinger's cat! lol

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I'm not trying to explain how it came to be. What happened before is unknown, what made the universe expand is also unknown. With our present knowledge of our own universe we can come to a conclusion backed by years of scientific study that has seen many thousands of different, testable theories to say that our Universe expanded about 13.7 billion years years ago and about 400,000 years after that the Universe had cooled enough for the formation of matter beyond a single proton.

The Universe as we describe it today is actually all of space and time. Space and time expand with the Universe.

You should research a bit of Albert Einstein's work on the Theory of Relativity and Alexander Friendmann's on deriving the expanding universe equation from the Theory of Relativity and general relativity.

curono

We can explain quite accurately right up to a few millionths of a second after the big bang. We do this not by direct observation but by looking at how matter behaves in conditions similar to those during the first fractions of a second after. We do this by looking at the interactions of particles at very high energies, we look at how the forces that hold and atom and its nuclei together. By studying collision after collision, we can build a statistical model of the various forces/ particles and see that at higher and higher energies they begin to behave in a similar way.

Through the better part of a century we have a very accurate model by which we can explain what is going on. Now the type of mathematics we use to explain this is statictics and probability. Like the gas flowing through one end of a bottle to another, we cannot use a precise model of every particle but we can use a statistical model that is actually much better at predicting the outcome of an interaction.

Going back to the conditions of the very early universe, we can lay down some very definite conditions at that time, the unification of the forces, the point at which the forces seperate etc all based on real-world results we observe right here on earth. Further evidence is gained from atmospheric observations of cosmic-ray interations related to gammer ray bursts interating with the upper atmoshere.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"] Why does the Universe have to have a beginning and end?ElectronFlux2

No, everthing isn'tmoving away from a central point, the space inbetween is expanding, everything is moving away from everything else. The rate at which a galaxy is moving away from us is proportional to its distance from us. The rate at which other galaxies are moving away from each other depends on their distance. Think of a balloon being inflated, the balloon being our universe.

[QUOTE="Bane_v2"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Eh, the universe's age isn't judged purely on the basis of the oldest star we've observed :/Funky_Llama

The age of the universe is an estimate based on type 1a supernovae. These are huge cataclysmic explosions that happen when a small white dwarf star's gravity pulls gas off the outer layers of its companion star. Basically, its keeps stealing material from the other star and as it builds up around the white dwarf it reaches a critical point and explodes. The reason these explosions are so important is because they always happen at a critical point, when a definite amount of matter has built up on the white dwarf star and the result is an explosion that gives of a very consistent amount of light.

Observing these type 1a supernovae, we have something to measure. Because we know luminosity of the supernovae we can take what we call the apparent luminosity and calculate how far away it is. If we know how far away it is, we can then look at its spectrum and look at how much it has shifted. Using the data on the supernova's redshift, we can build a picture up of the relative speeds away from us compared to their distance from us. Thats the important bit, the further away they are the more they are shifted to the red. The further away they are, the faster they are moving away. Looking at the type 1a supernovae that are over 10 billion light years away and we tell they are moving away from us at incredible speeds.

This means that all the galaxies are not moving away from a single point but everything is moving away from everything else. Its just like if you was to draw some small swirls on a balloon and then inflate the balloon. The swirls you drew move apart from each other, they are not moving but the rubber of the balloon is expanding between them. That is exactly what we observe with the universe.

Now simply, rewind this process back by looking at all the data we have for all the type 1a supernovae recorded and we can come up with a time in the past when everything would have been crunched together. From this we know that the universe cannot be older that 14b years old. The more data samples we use, the more accurate we can calculate the expansion. The most accurate estimates give the universe and age of 13.5 billion years old.

So its not so much the age of stars that we use to estimate the age of the universe but the rate of expansion as seen by observing type 1a supernovae!