|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:47 AM |
Me and my friend were looking into my internet. If you know me, you know my internet is absolutely terrible. My download speed is 67.8KBS at it's peak. (I know, I know.)
We decided to see how long it would take me to download a *yottobyte* at this speed. First off, let's look at what a 'yottobyte' is? 1000 gigabytes = 1 terabyte 1000 terabytes = 1 petabyte 1000 petabytes = 1 exabyte 1000 exabytes = 1 zettabyte 1000 zettabytes = 1 yottabyte A yottobyte can hold so much information it's insane. At that download speed (67.8KSBS), in order for me to download 1 yottobyte it would take roughly 500,379,593,373 years. 500 billion years. The sun is dead. The earth is dead. The universe is reborn. Pretty powerful. Not stopping there, let's see how long it would take for me to download a yottobyte at 1 BYTE per second.
31,688,764,615,412,792 years according to my friends math.
In 31 quadrillion years, The sun has exploded long ago and is now 5 degrees above absolute zero. 2. The big rip is tearing the universe apart. 3. No galaxies are visible but our own. 4. All star formation has ended. 5. Solar systems are colliding 6. All the stars in the universe have died 7. All planets are detached from their solar systems and are floating around in space.
And that's all until we get into the quintillions; but we're going to stop there.
God himself does not have the patience to wait 500 billion years, let alone 31 quadrillion years.
For my friend, at HIS peak, it would take him only 2 billion years to download a yottobyte.
everyone elses internet > mine
No hardrive on earth can currently hold a yottobyte. Harddrives that are considered modern can barely contain a terrabyte. A yottobyte is a figure used for future reference.
Think about how when a yottobyte of space will be installed in every computer 100 times- oh wait. It never will. Because by that time, there will be no more Earth. Or humans.
Fun little thing to think about.
- Blue |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:50 AM |
| And I now see why we are friends. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:51 AM |
'you need some sleep fella' lad wanna go put 'em up |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
exeras
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 4056 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:52 AM |
| This thing actually interested me |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:54 AM |
Interesting stuff, but I have to wonder, is this actually backed by real science? I mean, the sun and earth days, sure. But the universe being reborn? What?
#3, 4, 6, and 7 sound ridiculous.
If this is a trolling attempt, well then, I've definitely taken the bait. But I have no idea what those physics guys come up with. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:54 AM |
| Deaths* I suppose we're all tired here. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:55 AM |
| 3,4,6, and 7 are the result of the big rip |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:56 AM |
| ^ This is the man who did the math. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 01:57 AM |
| Ah, I'm sorry. I forgot to add 2 in there. Seriously though, you can answer truthfully. Was this backed by real science? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:00 AM |
@Livin We got a lot of the facts from a timeline of the universe website, which predicts (based on theories that can be proven true) what the universe will be in the distant future.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:03 AM |
| yes, it has been backed by real science/physics. as the universe expands, galaxies become further apart until they are so far apart we can see none but our own, explaining #3. the big rip that we talk about in #2 is the result of the universe endlessly expanding until it reaches its breaking point in which the universe is ripping itself apart, thus the big rip. all star formation ends (#4) because the universe has been around so long that there is no remaining "fuel" for birth of new stars. because no stars are being formed, and stars inevitably fade in to (almost) nothing, once all remaining stars after the end of new star creation are dead, no stars remain in the universe, explaining #6. because there are no stars to be the center of solar systems, planets just float around willy nilly (or at least those of them that weren't consumed in the star's supernova), explaining #7. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:04 AM |
but thanks to quantum physics the universe will be reborn :)
(maybe) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:06 AM |
Ah, well, since you actually bothered to look up some predictions, you can't be blamed if any of this turns out to never happen. However, since physicists don't exactly fully or anywhere close to fully understand the universe, and since 30 quadrillion years is a huge amount of time into the future to be predicting things, I'd say your source isn't very credible as science, and more for entertainment.
But, I'm being a joykill. Your post was interesting. The funky "facts" just threw me off the point of interest. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:09 AM |
| 30 quadrillion years isn't so significant when it comes to the death of the universe, we still have planets. they aren't just predictions, the only uncertain part of them is whether the universe keeps expanding (big rip) or slows down and then implodes (big crunch), in which case different but equally catastrophic things would happen as the entire universe becomes smaller than an atom. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:09 AM |
@Zalthulu
Ah, I see. That seems perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the explanation. The only thing I have a dispute with is the universe "reaching its breaking point." I personally don't think that'll happen. But as the rest of your reasons, they are very much in line with the big bang theory. However, the big bang theory itself is being called into question, and I think I saw some article about the creators of the theory saying it might not be real. I mean, obviously, it doesn't have to be real, but yeah. Alright, nice post. 9/10. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:11 AM |
| well, the universe has to reach a breaking point of some sort unless it just kind of stops expanding and remains the same exact size. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:14 AM |
| Well why does it have to reach a breaking point? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:16 AM |
@livin To speak in a little more English, Think of the universe as a piece of paper.
Let's just say that you are the universe as well.
You pull on the paper. No matter how much force you use, it will eventually have a breaking point and will rip. Same goes for if you were to crumple it. That's pretty much what the universe will do. It's inevitable. It's pulling on itself/pushing on itself and eventually it will have a breaking point. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:17 AM |
It has to have a breaking point otherwise it defies physics itself, which is
**IMPOSSIBLE**
trust me ive tried :( |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:17 AM |
| why not? is it supposed to keep expanding and expanding and no universal processes are disrupted? you know, at some point, it will expand so much that even atoms will be torn apart into protons/neutrons/electrons, and to take it even further, the protons/neutrons will be torn apart in to quarks. assuming the universe keeps expanding, we'll eventually have a universe that's made of nothing but subatomic particles (quarks, photons, etc) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Jul 2014 02:18 AM |
tl;dr
so much maths my tin pot is vibrating now |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|