If you took out everything in the universe except for two planets

There is so many things wrong with that neck

>>7777409
yup. gravity's reach is infinite.

>>7777409

Do you realize that you can mathematically compute this yourself?

>>7777419
No, that is why he is asking :^)

I'm just here for the GET

>>7777409
Only if Jesus is lord

>>7777409
>>7777417
Yup

>>7777530
Gravity is so amazing, am i right?

move faster damned board

>>7777417
But it would take some incredibly long time for it to occur, because gravity can't travel faster than C, right? And isn't the universe expanding faster than light? How would that affect it?

>>7777543
>gravity can't travel faster than C
>universe is expanding faster than light
What?

>>7777543
No.
If there were only two large bodies in the universe, and they (obviously) attracted each other by gravity, then the universe wouldn't expand.
The universe would be pulled inwards by the most powerful gravity (the two planets), so at best it would be hourglass shaped.
Currently, there's so many gravitational bodies in our universe that it just has to continue expanding to accommodate the flux and temperance of those bodies.

TL;DR the universe expands because it has to, in order to keep existing.
can expand on this more if anyone wants me to.

>>7778548
I want this knowledge, please go on.

>>7778560
Happy to give it to you.

The universe, as in all widely accepted models of thought, is a 'constantly expanding anomaly'; which, currently, is true.

But that's simply because of the sheer amount of Force present in the universe. There's a goggleplex of celestial bodies in our universe, and as such, it has to constantly grow larger and larger in order to accommodate these gargantuan planets/planetoids/every thing else; and, as a result, more and more get formed.

If our universe had two single planets and naught else, then it would have no need to expand, to grow, and to produce more.
It wouldn't be an 'ovoid' shape, it would be an hourglass figure. The two planets would have the edge of the universe relatively close to them, but it would flare out in the between space while the planets were gravitating closer together.

And I do have to apologize for the use of the word 'gravity' in my last post, it was the quickest way to get the facts across without having to go on a long explanation within an explanation.

>>7778573
Many thanks, good sir.

File: 1452526042990.jpg (62KB, 773x591px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 773x591px

>>7778573
B-b-but what would happen if you went to the edge/past the edge of the universe

Thanks for the explanation though!

If gravity's reach is infinite, are Coulombic attractions infinite too? r^2 would have to be infinite for the force to go to zero.

>>7779360

Yes.

>>7778548
M8 dark matter is causing the matter in the universe to expand and spread out, the universe itself isn't expanding

>>7778664
The three spatial dimensions we know are infinite and limited at the same time. They are infinite in that if you go far enough in one direction you will end up on the other side. They are limited in that because of this there is a maximum distance that can be reached; if you had an incredibly long measuring tape eventually it would reach itself again.

>>7779406
>The three spatial dimensions we know are infinite and limited at the same time. They are infinite in that if you go far enough in one direction you will end up on the other side. They are limited in that because of this there is a maximum distance that can be reached; if you had an incredibly long measuring tape eventually it would reach itself again.
No, space is flat. It extends infinitely and doesn't curve back on itself.

probably not. people would have you think that gravity's range is infinite, but that's just a model that makes things easier

>>7779420
You only think it's flat because the curvature is so large that it appears flat from our current perspective

>>7779420
Would it also be in a universe with 2 objects?
The question is silly because our observed definition of a universe could never form with 2 things

>>7779459
That's just a theory, all our evidence says it's flat.

>>7779426
Space itself act faster than the speed of light, giving gravity an infinite reach
>>7779469
Fair enough

>>7779482
Space itself *can act

>>7777580
>what is inflationary big bang theory
space between objects in the universe is growing in size, this is not visible between say your house and your friends house, but when you're dealing with trillions of light years is is apparent.
Because of thise, the space between 2 objects is increasing faster than light can pass through it (so long as you take 2 objects sufficiently far away from one another) and so yeah, the universe is expanding faster than light.

>>7777409
Do you think that her skin would not only look like plastic, but also feel like it?

Or is her whole thing dependent on airbrushing and/or makeup? I mean, aside from the tits and waist, which have obviously received a generous amount of cosmetic surgery.

I maintain that fucking her would be just like fucking a realdoll, except it can clean itself up afterward.

On the other hand, she's spent so much of her life and money to gain her fucked up doll-like visage that I wouldn't be surprised if she just had no interest in sex (would ruin her makeup, sully her "perfect" skin etc.), instead only using her (subjective) sexual attractiveness as a tool to gain social power and influence.

>>7779585
>just like fucking a realdoll

It is a real doll.

>>7779585
>Just checked the bottom-left corner of the image

Welp, disregard that, I suck cocks.

Thought it was that Ukrainian model (or her mom) who made herself look pretty much exactly like this silicone doll.

>>7778664
That's the thing, you can't.
Space travel is too dangerous to do unless you're propelling an entire celestial body.

>>7778573
Oh my kek, do people really believe this now? I thought this model was abandoned somewhere in the middle of 20th century due to being pure bullshit?