How does a drill work?

"Observe the unobservable" doesn't sound as cool, though.

>LANE

Attached: 1479970952207.png (630x691, 605K)

thats not the universe its the cosmic microwave background radiation you dumb retard

Oh yeah it's stream

>Gently down the lane

Attached: rtew43q.gif (498x332, 2.26M)

I thought it was an accepted fact that the universe is infinite.

Guys I know I'm retarded but pls no bully I had a hard day

Attached: 1549596549933.jpg (460x458, 26K)

it spins

Attached: 1554456603941.jpg (500x500, 48K)

>LANE

Attached: 1555381891959.png (400x400, 253K)

Which is bigger, TTGL or black hole?

I don't really see how anyone can determine that in the first place. I'm uneducated so it's perfectly possible I'm talking shit but as far as I know plenty of modern physics relies on the existence of stuff we haven't actually determined to exist.

you're kidding, right?

Stop bullying him guys

Attached: 1541473608717.jpg (761x611, 59K)

I don't see how that's useful.

Attached: 3dgifmaker.webm (500x500, 259K)

No, the universe is constantly expanding but we don't have enough information to tell if it will ever slow down or start shrinking back

>the universe is constantly expanding
Towards what? There is nothing outside the universe, so how is it expanding?

>There is nothing outside the universe
Look at the OP again dipshit

Epic

Towards the void .
What we call universe expention is just the spreading of matter,
if you go out of the univers it's just an infinity of void at -273C°

How do you fix that drill of it jams/breaks?

You just keep going with the smaller drill inside of it.

The dreams of those who have fallen, the hopes of those who will follow. Those two sets of dreams weave together into a double helix drilling a path toward tomorrow. We evolve beyond the person we were a minute before. Little by little, we advance a little further with each turn. That's how a drill works.

Fighting spirit.

because you're not spinning fast enough

Attached: 1554984602304.png (600x600, 272K)

>off by one
Time to take that drill to your skull.

This image is stupid, STTGL is just the size of several galaxies.

rude!

Attached: baka.png (456x346, 343K)

Ultra instinct goku will never beat this

It was back when battlefaggotry(?) was rampant, with fanwankery along with it.

>which is bigger, an object larger than the observable universe or a singularity with a volume of 0?

Also the space between stuff is expanding so even if there was nothing to 'expand' into the universe would still be expanding.

Alright Yea Forums It's time to break the you know what.

Attached: c9e.jpg (1010x573, 303K)

Did any other Anime went batshit crazy like TTGL
I dont recall any anime with Multiple Galaxy sized Giant Spirit Robot's fighting

Redline third act is the only thing that comes close

umineko
saint seiya
boku no pico
demon bane
dragon ball super

GATTAI

With the power of friendship.

it spins (and that's a good trick)

in order to tell what shape the universe is we would need to make a big interstellar triangle and measure the angles to see it they measure 180° iirc if its exactly 180° then the universe is flat if its a sphere or concave the angle will be more than 180°

It's not a fact though, just mostly accepted theory for now.

No it's not you fucking retard. There is nothing outside of the universe.

well, void IS nothing. checkmate.

Attached: chess (2).jpg (1281x713, 62K)

"empty" space is still absolutely stuffed full of tiny particles

that's not necessarily the case there are a few quirks of physics and weird universal constants that make no sense if the universe is all that exists and would line up with what wed expect if the universe was just one of an infinite number of universes that exist.

Have you measured it?

>Towards what?
Fuck knows

That's the observable universe
The cosmic background radiation is what we can observe of the universe because for all intents and purposes it is the universe. It's radiating out at the speed of light from the Big Bang

Attached: 1518126717368.jpg (680x680, 65K)

More than several. In the final battle the anti spiral was throwing Galaxies at STTGL like they were shurikens

Don't we know that the universe is flat?

That's still smaller than a newspaper folded 100 times

That's TTGL. TTGL =/= STTGL
STTGL is shown to be about that size. It's big toe dwarfs TTGL in height.

That wouldn't be definitive proof though. It could put a minimum on the possible size of a non-flat universe, but you'd be constrained by the limits of how big your triangle is and how precise your measurements are.

Galaxies differ in size as much as stars do. There's likely galaxies compared to which STTGL shouldn't even be visible.

Attached: firefox_2019-04-17_02-44-55.png (1440x791, 924K)

Watch this old tony.

>youtube.com/watch?v=DgfWEjpEhsU
>youtube.com/watch?v=_GUniGQSBIE

Attached: Kamina Thumbs Up.jpg (426x590, 58K)

I'm an assistantastronomy professor and don't know of any specific galaxy as large as that individual. Can you cite me your claim?

I did my own research, still undetermined how big the hypothetical 2 million light year one really is

Google says that the biggest known galaxy is 60 times the size of our galaxy, and since STTGL there completely dwarfs all those spiral galaxies, the biggest one wouldn't be all that much bigger than it

so is the second movie a retelling of the anti spiral arc with the added STTGL? only recently finally finished the main series

I'm a lead NEET enthusiast and I just found a video on youtube.

Shit forgot to post it.
youtube.com/watch?v=7FlwR02jRUc

I appreciate the cosmology enthusiasm but IC 1101 is not that big, like I said it's estimation is at around 2 million, possibly, because we don't have good enough reference
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438..539F

actually, the person who made the video is just an idiot and intentionally lying for views

I mean, without knowing the size of galaxies shown in the movie we can't estimate relative size anyway, they may or may not be a dwarf galaxies.

I'm a retard for even trying to equate gurren lagan with reality anyway

Attached: 1498798217124.jpg (1600x1600, 973K)

>Towards what?
Who the fuck knows. We just know that it's most probably expanding while observing it from the inside you faggot.

What is the correct lyrics? I don't want to google this shit. FBI might get on my back.

does this make anyone else think just how incredibly tiny and insignificant we are from a point of view of a higher, larger form of life

it makes me wonder how fucked we'd be if we were immortal and had to deal with these extensive sizes and timescales

clearly the common definition of flat and what math autists say is flat is different
explain yourselves turbospergs

Assume the world is a perfect sphere. Now go outside and draw a triangle, then measure the angles. You're probably gonna get 180 degrees exactly. But the surface of a sphere isn't flat, it's clearly curved. It's simply an issue of scale; even if you made an intergalactic triangle and measured the angles to be 180, there's no reason the universe couldn't be so massive you just don't have enough precision to detect the curvature at that 'small' scale.

what I mean to say is that the perceived world is clearly three-dimensional, and to go out and say that the world is flat or two-dimensional is insanity and that you have explaining to do.

what are you talking about? no one said the world is flat or two dimensional

stream, life is but a dream

What? No no, 'flat' just means Euclidean basically. Obviously we're talking about the 3D equivalent to what you think of as 2D flatness, whatever you want to call it. You just use a 2D analogue when talking a lot since a non-euclidean (non-'flat') 2D space is very easy to visualize, whereas a non-euclidean 3D space would need four dimensions to really visualize what it looks like.
Again, think of the 2D example. A Sphere is a 2-dimensional non-euclidean shape, but to truly see the curvature you have to be in 3 dimensions. When you're in that 2D space - like people standing on the surface of the earth - it appears flat. You have to take stock of side effects to measure the non-flatness otherwise (like measuring the angles of a really large triangle, or the whole ships disappearing beyond the horizon thing). Universe is the same way; since it's 3D, and we're 3D living in it, the only way to know if it's 'flat' or not would be to measure the side effects. I'm just pointing out that measuring the angles of a triangle wouldn't prove it's 'flat', since it could just be so large we can't measure the deviation in the angles. Could prove it's not 'flat' though, if the deviation was found.
(And actually, for a 3D space you'd probably have to measure tetrahedrons instead of triangles or something, not really sure. Haven't thought about it before.)

Debatefaggotry would be a more fitting term.

It makes me wonder why our psyche always get overwhelmed by immensely large number but not by immensely similar concepts.

>the universe is flat
>no one said the world is flat or two-dimensional
sure, dude, sure.

To call that "flat" is gross misappropriation of the word.
I think about it this way: If we were to visualize the 3d euclidean space using cartesian coordinates, then at particular points you may find the coordinates slightly distorted where massive objects are located.
At a large scale, you may find the entire space distorted in a particular way.

For example, in 2D and 3D art applications we can use a "cage transform" or "lattice modifier" to distort an object.
The cage can be unmodified, with effort it can be twisted into a sphere or any other conceivable shape.

Note how I can do all of this without confusing people with autistic math jargon.

Attached: maxresdefault[1].jpg (1280x720, 141K)

>sure, dude, sure.
?

user you have two very knowledgeable nerds trying to explain to you, why are you getting so aggressive?

You think that's aggressive?

At worst I'm trying to discourage people from pulling "wow science unintuitive!" stunts like calling the universe """flat""" to impress soccer moms, and at best trying to encourage people to come up with explanations that make sense to people who haven't had the training to even bother thinking of the world in higher dimensions.

You should really stop posting. Preferably forever.

With the heart
and also this

>Lane
Im gonna have to bully for that one

>higher
Please define.

testosterone

but the universe is flat

flat means 2D and nothing else to the common man.

Hell, I even gave an example that could not be confusing to anyone, "undistorted at a large scale"

so? that's a subjective characterization, any word can have a different meaning to any abstract group

fucking magic.

Attached: Metal like Clay.webm (578x344, 1.61M)

I'd love to play sophistry with you, but dictionaries define the word "flat" to be relative to surfaces.

>discussing 'science term'
Yikes, those retards can't even say if gravity is real yet let alone give a non cgi photo of the moon.
Space itself might not be some dark void but an endless water expense.

so? we're not talking about arboriculture, we're talking about cosmology

You're outside of your math cave. I could care less what you say to academics, but when in Rome you do as Romans do.

I'm sorry user, I'll attempt to learn the subject better so I can explain it better in the future as well

'Flat' IS using a layman's term and avoiding 'autistic math jargon'. I'm pretty sure most people with 3-digit IQ, when hearing 'flat' used to describe a 3D space (especially in the context of a conversation about the shape of the universe) are going to be able to put two and two together. If I really wanted to bring out 'jargon' we'd be talking about this in formal topological terms (your modeling example is pretty much a standard discussion/example of what topology is in fact).
You want to talk dictionary definitions?
'Flat - smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.' Nothing about the number of dimensions, just the nature of the surface/space.

astronomy's complicated, just let it be, we probably shouldn't be discussing it here anyway

Unless you're practicing to teach in front of a class, I wouldn't even bother myself.

People outside of /sci/ have no concept of any spatial dimensions outside of the third, it would behoove you to understand that people would not in fact put two and two together.
But if you were to fire up Blender, pop in one of those stupid monkeys and transform it with a lattice they would instantly understand.

Towards more universe

>LAIN

Attached: 1549161851363.jpg (681x681, 39K)

I posted earlier I was an assistant professor for the physics department, meteorology and astronomy specifically, but we don't cover cosmological scales in astronomy 101, just the basics, so I fumble it too much to explain it comprehensibly

Yeah, and "empty" space isn't a void, empty space is you twit.

THE GROUND BELOW MY FEET

Attached: 3B1CC70B-2672-4BB3-8F65-FB664EE8460F.jpg (1913x3204, 540K)

That drill wouldn't work well as a drill.

Attached: drillbit.gif (316x302, 22K)

>Lane

Attached: abominable normie.png (366x375, 156K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

eh, not really because if you think about it there is microorganisms even smaller than that. Really, to me, it's a never ending cycle of of universes not just by distance and collection of space rock, but by size of big and small.

Opposite to be honest.
If the arrow of time is linear starting from the big bang than the only time it could support conscious beings similar to us is right now. Human race has an expiry date of another maximum of 5000 years if we are unable to leave our planet en masse, our solar system has an expiry date of a maximum 5 billion years (more likely 1/3rd as much due to gravitational shifts) which sounds like a long time but it doesn't even account for 0.00000000000000001% of the universe life. In any other age (degenerate age when protons start decaying (not 100% proven but a very respected model) into the black dwarf era (when a big enough star has exhausted almost all its fuel) into the black hole era into the final stages of the universe where it expands at multiple times the speed of light and as such every molecule drifts light years away from one another, as an example, in this era our entire solar system would not even be inhabited by a single molecule, that's how far away they will be from one another. So if time is truely linear we are almost absurdly lucky to be at exactly the right time of its age.

Or the universe and as such time is a cycle, which would make us a lot less statistically improbable.

It's like 10 million light years tall. The size of the largest galaxies, but much, much bigger than ours.

Fuck the common man, who gives a shit about them?

>a non cgi photo of the moon.
Look up.

Can THAT drill pierce the heavens, though?

this. it's infinite