big bang theory under attack due to baffling discovery

[sdowney717]

Scientists glimpse 'dark flow' lurking beyond the edge of the universe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3352360/Scientists-glimpse-dark-flow-lurking-beyond-the-edge-of-the-universe.html


Distant clusters of galaxies are all shifting inexorably towards the same spot in the sky, beyond the boundary of what we can see, a baffling discovery by Nasa scientists that seems to challenge our understanding of the Big Bang.

All galaxies are accelerating towards a single spot.
How little people really know about the universe. The unseen things are greater than what is observable.

[Decatf]

The kraken sits at the edge gobbling up galaxies.

[mips]

Singularity from another universe. We're all gonna get sucked in :biggrin:

[Gremlinzzz]

Most theory's are proven wrong so the big bang theory was wrong!
The world wont come to a end or will it?

[ender4]

Scientific theories are only approximations of reality. Every theory is eventually replaced by a better one. It was only a matter of time before the someone found problems with the Big Bang theory.

My favorite example is that Newton's "law" of universal gravitation was replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

[earthpigg]

if things can't travel faster than light, and the universe is 14bn years old, how can there be something more than 14bn lightyears away?

[ender4]

if things can't travel faster than light, and the universe is 14bn years old, how can there be something more than 14bn lightyears away?

A common misconception about the big bang is that everything originated from a single point. However the theory actually states that space itself is expanding. When the universe "banged" it was already infinitely large (or at least had a non-zero volume, it's impossible to know if it is or was really infinite) and that space started to expand, sort of like an infinite loaf of bread that is rising.

[earthpigg]

can there be/have-been multiple big bangs and crunches going on in the same universe, just so spread out that light from the other ones hasn't had a chance to reach our young eyeballs here on earth?

would light/radiation/etc from an event that happened 100bn years ago 100bn lightyears away reach us intact, or would it be scattered to hell and gone? thinking of the stellar background radiation that we are aware of.

also:

light can be bent by gravity. does this have the effect of slowing it down? in the Newtonian world i perceive around me, a car traveling 100mph in a zig zag pattern will arrive slower than a car traveling 100mph as the crow flies.

[lisati]

If we were to eventually get it all figured out, where would all the fun be in discovering and discussing the merits (or otherwise) of all the different possible explanations?

[aaaantoine]

Hm, this article is from September 2008. You'd think we would have heard more about this discovery by now.

[3Miro]

if things can't travel faster than light, and the universe is 14bn years old, how can there be something more than 14bn lightyears away?

Nothing can "travel" faster than light, but space can expand faster. Thus, the distance between two objects can be more than age_of_the_universe * speed_of_light. The problem is that we cannot "see" such objects.

[Chronon]

Hm, this article is from September 2008. You'd think we would have heard more about this discovery by now.

Yes, it is pretty old news. I think cosmologists need some time to actually come up with new models and predictions that can be tested.

For a long time the steady-state cosmologists have been in retreat. Theorists have claimed that time and space originated with the Big Bang (technically, shortly afterward). However, all our observations really tell us is that a hot dense state lies in the past of the visible universe. Spacetime was assumed to be basically homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scales.

This dark flow represent an anisotropy that violates assumptions of the Big Bang(TM) and suggests that the hot, dense state could only be a localized event. Perhaps there is much older structure in a much older universe and we simply inhabit a region that has been recycled due to some highly energetic event. (I'm not really that into M-theory and its offshoots but this could be consistent with the idea of a collision between branes.)

Anyway, I see this observation as something that should remove confidence in the age and large scale structure of the universe.

[ki4jgt]

if things can't travel faster than light, and the universe is 14bn years old, how can there be something more than 14bn lightyears away?

On this subject, Why do people believe that if you travel faster than light, you're gonna go to another time or place?

I sat and argued with my science teacher in 7th grade about this, He kept reffering me to book after book, but never could tell me how it worked. I mean the universe doesn't have a built in memory card, where it can say, LOADING. . . LOADING . . . WELCOME TO 1943 (AGAIN!!) So can someone please explain that to me??

[MadCow108]

The article says nothing that this disproves big bang theory. In contrary it even states it as a possible explanation: inhomogenous mass pushed beyond visible horizon during inflation, although this does sound more like a theorists dream. Observing something from before inflation this directly would be almost to nice to be true ;)

Anyhow I'm in science (although not astrophyics) but have not even heard of this yet.
Probably they forgot to account for some systematic, but I'll keep my eyees open for papers on the subject.
The recently shot up planck satellite should shed some light on this.

[TheLions]

On this subject, Why do people believe that if you travel faster than light, you're gonna go to another time or place?

I sat and argued with my science teacher in 7th grade about this, He kept reffering me to book after book, but never could tell me how it worked. I mean the universe doesn't have a built in memory card, where it can say, LOADING. . . LOADING . . . WELCOME TO 1943 (AGAIN!!) So can someone please explain that to me??

By Einstein theory of relativity, traveling faster then light would go back in time. Currently counterexample wasn't found to disapprove this theory...

[Gremlinzzz]

Dark flow, maybe someone Flushed.

[mkendall]

On this subject, Why do people believe that if you travel faster than light, you're gonna go to another time or place?

I sat and argued with my science teacher in 7th grade about this, He kept reffering me to book after book, but never could tell me how it worked. I mean the universe doesn't have a built in memory card, where it can say, LOADING. . . LOADING . . . WELCOME TO 1943 (AGAIN!!) So can someone please explain that to me??

The equation for relativistic time dilation is delta t' = delta t/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). (Look it up in wikipedia to see it mathematically.)

As an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, time passes for the object more slowly than that for an observer at rest, to the point where no time passes at all at the speed of light.

v^2/c^2 is less than 1 because the velocity of an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, therefore 1-v^2/c^2 is always greater than 0.

If the velocity v were to become greater than the speed of light c, then what would happen? As the velocity increases toward the speed of light, time slows down; when the velocity matches the speed of light, time stops; therefore when the velocity exceeds the speed of light, time should go backwards.

[Paqman]

The article says nothing that this disproves big bang theory.

+1

All that it says is that an unobserved phenomenon beyond the cosmic horizon is attracting some galaxies. Without knowing any more about the phenomenon it's a bit premature to say that it disproves anything.

[ki4jgt]

The equation for relativistic time dilation is delta t' = delta t/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). (Look it up in wikipedia to see it mathematically.)

As an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, time passes for the object more slowly than that for an observer at rest, to the point where no time passes at all at the speed of light.

v^2/c^2 is less than 1 because the velocity of an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, therefore 1-v^2/c^2 is always greater than 0.

If the velocity v were to become greater than the speed of light c, then what would happen? As the velocity increases toward the speed of light, time slows down; when the velocity matches the speed of light, time stops; therefore when the velocity exceeds the speed of light, time should go backwards.

I read all the books, I just disagree. :-( sorry, I just don't see how someone going 4mph and someone going 80mph would have differences in how fast time passed by as they were going those individual speeds. I understand that someone going 80 miles per hour can get somewhere faster (The time it takes to reach a destination is shortened, but a second is still a second) I used to argue with my teachers about everything though (Back when I had a brain) In 9th grade I didn't understand how time could be counted as a dimension. I get 1X1X1 and then the forth X1 I got that. I mean, if you create a block that's 1X1X1 and then you create another block the same size. I was told that is why time was considered another dimension, but it makes no sense in that dimensions are all measurable (Definable and constantly), but the time which passes between each block is neither definable or constant.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Most theory's are proven wrong so the big bang theory was wrong!
The world wont come to a end or will it?

Theory means "not fact". Most theories are presented as facts, or taken as fact, when in fact, they are not. :)

[orlox]

I read all the books, I just disagree. :-( sorry, I just don't see how someone going 4mph and someone going 80mph would have differences in how fast time passed by as they were going those individual speeds. I understand that someone going 80 miles per hour can get somewhere faster (The time it takes to reach a destination is shortened, but a second is still a second) I used to argue with my teachers about everything though (Back when I had a brain) In 9th grade I didn't understand how time could be counted as a dimension. I get 1X1X1 and then the forth X1 I got that. I mean, if you create a block that's 1X1X1 and then you create another block the same size. I was told that is why time was considered another dimension, but it makes no sense in that dimensions are all measurable (Definable and constantly), but the time which passes between each block is neither definable or constant.

Yet, that's the way the world works :). The number of tests available that show that the theory of special relativity is correct is astounding, so we just have to accept that objects travelling at speed close to light behave significantly different than anything we, slow moving creatures, can perceive...

[NCLI]

I read all the books, I just disagree. :-( sorry, I just don't see how someone going 4mph and someone going 80mph would have differences in how fast time passed by as they were going those individual speeds. I understand that someone going 80 miles per hour can get somewhere faster (The time it takes to reach a destination is shortened, but a second is still a second) I used to argue with my teachers about everything though (Back when I had a brain) In 9th grade I didn't understand how time could be counted as a dimension. I get 1X1X1 and then the forth X1 I got that. I mean, if you create a block that's 1X1X1 and then you create another block the same size. I was told that is why time was considered another dimension, but it makes no sense in that dimensions are all measurable (Definable and constantly), but the time which passes between each block is neither definable or constant.
It is a fact, so it's not really something you can disagree with ;)

if things can't travel faster than light, and the universe is 14bn years old, how can there be something more than 14bn lightyears away?
There can't, or at least, we can't see it if it's there. Do you know of any such phenomenon?

Scientific theories are only approximations of reality. Every theory is eventually replaced by a better one. It was only a matter of time before the someone found problems with the Big Bang theory.

My favorite example is that Newton's "law" of universal gravitation was replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
It wasn't really replaced so much as augmented. Newtons Law of Gravity still works perfectly on a small scale.

Anyway, this is certainly no surprise. There has always been quite a few problems with the big bang theory.

[koenn]

I read all the books, I just disagree.

I hope you still believe in gravity, though.

[ki4jgt]

I hope you still believe in gravity, though.

No, I believe if we think really hard. Our heads will explode and our bodies will be able to float. Gravity only exists b/c we tell it to :-), I understand why time is counted as a dimension, but I don't believe it is. In certain ways, it is, but in entirety it isn't. Kind of like how they're classifying Pluto now.

***EDIT: The first part was a joke by the way :-)

[TeoBigusGeekus]

A nice article about the universe's diameter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html).

So, if the universe is at least ~150x10^9 light years across, not being able to see something more than 14x10^9 light years away is completely normal I think.

[ki4jgt]

It is a fact, so it's not really something you can disagree with ;)

Can you give me a real life example? In space or on Earth? One which has really happened or could really happen?

[TeoBigusGeekus]

Can you give me a real life example? In space or on Earth? One which has really happened or could really happen?

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

[Chronon]

I understand why time is counted as a dimension, but I don't believe it is. In certain ways, it is, but in entirety it isn't. Kind of like how they're classifying Pluto now.

You should avoid using statements involving the word "is" when talking about modern science, in particular. Science today has to do with devising useful models or explanations for things, not with finding truth. Just because a scientist talks about time as a dimension doesn't mean they necessarily think it IS a dimension.

[Chronon]

Theory means "not fact". Most theories are presented as facts, or taken as fact, when in fact, they are not. :)

That may correspond to a popular understanding of those words but doesn't address what scientists mean. A theory refers to a logical system that can be used to predict or explain the properties of a physical system.

One can become more or less confident in the usefulness or applicability of a theory but it always remains that -- a theory. A theory can never become a fact, which refers to a fundamentally different type of idea. Scientifically, fact most closely corresponds to highly repeatable observations or measurements.

[TheLions]

No, I believe if we think really hard. Our heads will explode and our bodies will be able to float. Gravity only exists b/c we tell it to :-), I understand why time is counted as a dimension, but I don't believe it is. In certain ways, it is, but in entirety it isn't. Kind of like how they're classifying Pluto now.

***EDIT: The first part was a joke by the way :-)

Science is not a religion.... it is a bunch of proven theorems, facts and formalisms (abstractions). Dimension is just another abstraction to simplify explanation.

[koenn]

Can you give me a real life example? In space or on Earth? One which has really happened or could really happen?

It goes something like this :
when you try to accurately describe space, i.e. mathematically, the way Einstein did, you find that the 3 traditional dimensions are insufficient, but when you factor in time, things work out. That's why they talk about the space-time-continuum rather than just "space", and in that perspective, time can be considered a dimension.


Or you could just ask yourself what time "really" is. Just like length, height and width (or whatever you want to call those 3 axes of an arbitrary coordinate system), it's just a construct of the mind.

Furthermore, our concept of time is modeled very much after our (spatial) concepts of "distance" and "direction". That's why we use say things like "travel forward in time " or "go back in time" while in fact it's just an indication of the (+ or -) sign of the factor time in a mathematical equation.

[dondiego2]

I love these physics discussions! I am an engineer and I find it fascinating. I had read that article on GPS before and it is a very good article. I also noticed that the original article was over 2 years old and I listen to a lot of science podcasts and listen to science news and never really heard that mentioned anywhere else. I'd like to know if there have been any further development on the story.

I sucked at relativity in school (or PChem was the class most of us Chemical Engineers died in), but I do find it fascinating and understand it better now that I am trying for a grade.

[ki4jgt]

You should avoid using statements involving the word "is" when talking about modern science, in particular. Science today has to do with devising useful models or explanations for things, not with finding truth. Just because a scientist talks about time as a dimension doesn't mean they necessarily think it IS a dimension.

That should be included in lesson plans so the teacher doesn't spend time telling the students that time is an actual dimension 100%

[TeoBigusGeekus]

That should be included in lesson plans so the teacher doesn't spend time telling the students that time is an actual dimension 100%

My understanding of it:
When we say that time is another dimension, we shouldn't really think that it is another length/width/depth, but rather think of it as an another parameter that should be taken into account whenever we study the natural world.
So, to define an event, its position, x,y,z coordinates, is not enough to determine its state and interaction with the surrounding environment: we should also take into account it's speed (special relativity) and the gravitational field in which it takes place (general relativity).

Or something like that... :lolflag:

[Gremlinzzz]

Theory means "not fact". Most theories are presented as facts, or taken as fact, when in fact, they are not. :)

If you think I,am geek enough to know the difference. then that's just a Theory.:p

[Paqman]

Theory means "not fact".

Actually, a scientific theory needs quite a lot of facts and evidence to back it up. The word "theory" in scientific use means something a lot more certain than the vernacular use.


A nice article about the universe's diameter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html).

So, if the universe is at least ~150x10^9 light years across, not being able to see something more than 14x10^9 light years away is completely normal I think.

The actual horizon is a lot further out than that, due to the fact that space has been expanding the whole time. The horizon is now about 46 billion light years away.

[ki4jgt]

Science is not a religion.... it is a bunch of proven theorems, facts and formalisms (abstractions). Dimension is just another abstraction to simplify explanation.

Of which you have the task of choosing what you believe to be true, and what you believe to be false. So did all smart dudes in history. Proven until more evidence comes along. Sorry, but if I choose not to believe that a microwave is deadly to humans, (it may not be true) but I can believe it. That implies nothing to the notion of wether I feel our lives are led by a cosmic force or whether I feel that we make our own destinies.

[ki4jgt]

Only spacetime is observer independent.

Can you please define space time?

[koenn]

Of which you have the task of choosing what you believe to be true, and what you believe to be false. So did all smart dudes in history. Proven until more evidence comes along.

There's still a big difference between blindly (not) believing something, and understanding a theory (in the scientific sense, as explained earlier) so well that you're able to find flaws in it. The smart dudes in history did the latter. I'm not so sure about you :)

[ki4jgt]

There's still a big difference between blindly (not) believing something, and understanding a theory (in the scientific sense, as explained earlier) so well that you're able to find flaws in it. The smart dudes in history did the latter. I'm not so sure about you :)

Which is why I'm trying to read it. You guys are very helpful. You see, I've had several students in HS, treat me like I was weird b/c I dissagreed with things like Charmed's version of traveling back in time. I'm sorry, but from my point of view, This is down right impossible. For one, as stated above the universe has no built in memory card. For two, I see no one who has come back yet. and for three, it just sounds too much like people are trying to hold on to the view that they have a second chance at something.

[TheLions]

...Sorry, but if I choose not to believe that a microwave is deadly to humans, (it may not be true) but I can believe it. That implies nothing to the notion of wether I feel our lives are led by a cosmic force or whether I feel that we make our own destinies.

But can you prove you believes? Or it is just random guessing...

I believe there is life on Mars, but I can't prove it, so my believes means nothing...

[ki4jgt]

But can you prove you believes? Or it is just random guessing...

I believe there is life on Mars, but I can't prove it, so my believes means nothing...

Sorry, but no belief is based on random guessing :-) It's based on what you see (or think you see). I don't even think the human brain can believe something random. I think our heads would explode if we believed something random :-|

[Gremlinzzz]

Which is why I'm trying to read it. You guys are very helpful. You see, I've had several students in HS, treat me like I was weird b/c I dissagreed with things like Charmed's version of traveling back in time. I'm sorry, but from my point of view, This is down right impossible. For one, as stated above the universe has no built in memory card. For two, I see no one who has come back yet. and for three, it just sounds too much like people are trying to hold on to the view that they have a second chance at something.

Once the horse race is over throw away the ticket.

[Paqman]

I dissagreed with things like Charmed's version of traveling back in time. I'm sorry, but from my point of view, This is down right impossible.

There's no known mechanism for travelling back in time, but travelling forwards doesn't seem to violate any known laws. Get yourself a fast space ship and park in orbit close to a supermassive black hole for a few years, and when you're done more time will have passed in the rest of the universe than on board your ship. You will have skipped ahead in time.

[uRock]

This.
Everything is created by something and it is impossible for everything to be created from nothing, therefore we cannot exist.

[ki4jgt]

Which is why I'm trying to read it. You guys are very helpful. You see, I've had several students in HS, treat me like I was weird b/c I dissagreed with things like Charmed's version of traveling back in time. I'm sorry, but from my point of view, This is down right impossible. For one, as stated above the universe has no built in memory card. For two, I see no one who has come back yet. and for three, it just sounds too much like people are trying to hold on to the view that they have a second chance at something.

OMG is this like a joke? If this is all there is to this theory, I already knew this :confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk

That still doesn't prove you can go back in time. Just that the light looks as if it is moving faster to the observer on the planet. (It's not, the ships are simply taking with them) If the ships went faster than light, we wouldn't be able to see them, but they would still be in our time period!

[Chronon]

Science is not a religion.... it is a bunch of proven theorems, facts and formalisms (abstractions). Dimension is just another abstraction to simplify explanation.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this. Theorems and proofs have a place in mathematics and logic, not science. Proofs demonstrate the conditional truth of a given theorem but in science we can't ever know whether the premise was actually true. Thus, we cannot put our fingers on any certain truths in science. We can only construct models and try to minimize the differences between their predictions and what we see in the real world.

Theorems can be used to advance a theory, but we cannot prove their truth in any absolute ontological sense. A theorem can only be demonstrated as true when its physical implications have been tested in every possible way and found to be completely consistent (a practical impossibility).

I agree about the rest of it (data/facts, abstractions, etc.).

[ki4jgt]

I think what you guys are defining as space time, is what I've always assumed time to be.

[Chronon]

OMG is this like a joke? If this is all there is to this theory, I already knew this :confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk

That still doesn't prove you can go back in time. Just that the light looks as if it is moving faster to the observer on the planet. (It's not, the ships are simply taking with them) If the ships went faster than light, we wouldn't be able to see them, but they would still be in our time period!

Nobody has proven the possibility of time travel because nobody has demonstrated it.

Anti-particles may be thought of as normal particles moving backward in time.

[constellanation]

There's no known mechanism for travelling back in time, but travelling forwards doesn't seem to violate any known laws. Get yourself a fast space ship and park in orbit close to a supermassive black hole for a few years, and when you're done more time will have passed in the rest of the universe than on board your ship. You will have skipped ahead in time.


this is the closest we can get to time travel now. as far as, literal time travel back to the future style, that is all speculation.

But if you need a quicker way to go forward a few hundred years then sitting around here on earth waiting, the above mentioned way is possible (though not really, but proven!)

[Chronon]

I think what you guys are defining as space time, is what I've always assumed time to be.

Most people assume time to be that which we measure with clocks.

[ki4jgt]

Most people assume time to be that which we measure with clocks.

It can be measured with clocks. The clocks are just different. Not because the value of a second changes, but b/c the amount of time needed to define a particular "Time Period" is not the same.

[Chronon]

Do you also measure your notion of time with a meter stick?

[ki4jgt]

Do you also measure your notion of time with a meter stick?

I'm just going by what the video says about relativity :-) Sorry if you find it discouraging.

[Chronon]

I'm just going by what the video says about relativity :-) Sorry if you find it discouraging.

You said this:

I think what you guys are defining as space time, is what I've always assumed time to be.

Then I asked this:

Do you also measure your notion of time with a meter stick?

Space-time has multiple dimensions. The measurement of distances in space-time requires both clocks and meter sticks.

[Gremlinzzz]

There s a warp in time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ff0cOPSpVA&feature=fvw

[ki4jgt]

You said this:


Then I asked this:


Space-time has multiple dimensions. The measurement of distances in space-time requires both clocks and meter sticks.

No mention of that in the video :-( Maybe not then. So where do I hear about the meter thing at?

[Chronon]

Space-time comprises what we usually call space and time. To give coordinates in space-time I have to provide 3 spatial coordinates and a time coordinate. I can find the distance between any two events in spacetime only if I know the full set of coordinates for each event.

If your notion of time corresponds to what scientists call spacetime then you need to give four independent numbers each time someone asks you for the time.

[Gremlinzzz]

Happened 6 times and life bounces back!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlF8APEkh-E

[ki4jgt]

Space-time comprises what we usually call space and time. To give coordinates in space-time I have to provide 3 spatial coordinates and a time coordinate. I can find the distance between any two events in spacetime only if I know the full set of coordinates for each event.

If your notion of time corresponds to what scientists call spacetime then you need to give four independent numbers each time someone asks you for the time.

OK. . . I just can't believe my teach kept telling me we could go back in time and forward in time thousands of years. I should've guessed from the title, relativity meaning to where you are :-) would determine the timeframe. Well, I didn't know this was possible. I feel smart and dumb at the same time. So is the whole black hole thing the same way?

[doorknob60]

I thought you were talking about the TV show when I read the title, about something controversial they said in the show or something :P But I've never believed in the big bang theory, so I think this is good I guess :P

[ki4jgt]

Scientists glimpse 'dark flow' lurking beyond the edge of the universe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3352360/Scientists-glimpse-dark-flow-lurking-beyond-the-edge-of-the-universe.html



All galaxies are accelerating towards a single spot.
How little people really know about the universe. The unseen things are greater than what is observable.

Sorry Sdowney717 didn't mean to steal the thread :-(

[dondiego2]

But I've never believed in the big bang theory.... :P

The begs the question...do you have an alternate explanation -- along the lines of physics?

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I really don't get the significance of the article. If space is expanding then there could be objects traveling away from us at speeds greater that the speed of light. Therefore, there could be a mass outside of our visible universe, and it could be very large. For example, I have 6 points in space and each is traveling away from each other at 25% the speed of light due to expansion of space. I could add additional points and use smaller expansion values to arrive at the same conclusion. Using a 6 point example, points A and C in the depiction below would be traveling away from each other at 50% the speed of light. Points A and E would be traveling away from each other at the speed of light. Points A and F would be traveling away from each other at 125% the speed of light; therefore, F would be invisible to us if we were located at point A. Someone located at points B, C, D, and E could still see F; such as, D would see F traveling at 50% the speed of light.



A<---.25c--->B<---.25c--->C<---.25c--->D<---.25c--->E<---.25c--->F
|<---------.5c----------->|
|<----------------------1c--------------------------|
|<--------------------------1.25c--------------------------------|
|<---------.5c----------->|

Am I missing something in the article? I have thought about the relationship of space expanding and the limitation of the speed of light since the 1970's.

Is there some theory that the universe can not expand fast enough for the individual points to exceed the speed of light with respect to each other and there is some sort of collision/compression at that boundary?

[Paqman]

So is the whole black hole thing the same way?

Which bit of "the black hole thing"? A black hole is a large star that has burned out and collapsed under its own gravity down to become very, very, very dense. So dense in fact that a lot of the maths that we use to try and describe these things breaks down, so there's a lot of question marks over their exact properties.

[MasterNetra]

By Einstein theory of relativity, traveling faster then light would go back in time. Currently counterexample wasn't found to disapprove this theory...

Going FTL resulting in traveling back into time? Doesn't compute, how does moving faster then a particle result in being moved backwards in the progess of events? I don't see the link. Our visual perception of movement is depended on light not the movement of matter itself (minus whatever effect collision of it may have).

Onto the subject itself, the source of the pull could (for all we know) turnout to be the grand daddy of all black-holes...which of course would suck for us unless we start moving the other direction.

[disabledaccount]

Some years ago I've heard good explanation of why we can't understand multi-dimensional space:
Imagine, that sheet of paper is 3d-world: 2 "physical" dimensions and time. There is a man painted on the sheet and he has an empty box. You, as the master of 4-D world (3D + time) can draw something in that box without opening it. From 2D-Man point of view You've made a miracle (or maybe time-space deflection), but for You the box is just square and you dont need to "open" it.

2D-Man will have some theory about his surrounding space and he has proofs - but try to explain him what have You done :)

[Lucradia]

Am I missing something in the article? I have thought about the relationship of space expanding and the limitation of the speed of light since the 1970's.

Is there some theory that the universe can not expand fast enough for the individual points to exceed the speed of light with respect to each other and there is some sort of collision/compression at that boundary?

There is a possibility of space "ravines" or "mountains" that cause these galaxies to flow through this determined point and suddenly vanish through this point.

Not calling it a wormhole or black hole, it may just be an extremely high dense portion of Dark matter bundled together, forcing anything close to it to flow through its small river of space.

[nothingspecial]

To not travel through time is the difficult bit.

[PC_load_letter]

A common misconception about the big bang is that everything originated from a single point. However the theory actually states that space itself is expanding. When the universe "banged" it was already infinitely large (or at least had a non-zero volume, it's impossible to know if it is or was really infinite) and that space started to expand, sort of like an infinite loaf of bread that is rising.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no speed limit on how fast the sapcetime expands.

[Ender985]

I really don't get the significance of the article. If space is expanding then there could be objects traveling away from us at speeds greater that the speed of light. Therefore, there could be a mass outside of our visible universe, and it could be very large. For example, I have 6 points in space and each is traveling away from each other at 25% the speed of light due to expansion of space. I could add additional points and use smaller expansion values to arrive at the same conclusion. Using a 6 point example, points A and C in the depiction below would be traveling away from each other at 50% the speed of light. Points A and E would be traveling away from each other at the speed of light. Points A and F would be traveling away from each other at 125% the speed of light; therefore, F would be invisible to us if we were located at point A. Someone located at points B, C, D, and E could still see F; such as, D would see F traveling at 50% the speed of light.

Am I missing something in the article? I have thought about the relationship of space expanding and the limitation of the speed of light since the 1970's.

Is there some theory that the universe can not expand fast enough for the individual points to exceed the speed of light with respect to each other and there is some sort of collision/compression at that boundary?

And if you were traveling in a train that moves at 99.99% of the speed of light, would you be able to walk inside of it? Would you be able to see your face in the bathroom's mirror?

The complete lack of understanding of the general relativity in this thread is amazing. Just hit the wikipedia folks, and you might begin to understand some things, like how Einstein started thinking about that train and developed his theory.

On the other hand, I'd like to be able to read the research paper instead of trying to make sense out of what a clueless journalist understood. But they do not cite their sources, how appropiate.

[Gremlinzzz]

Travelling back or forward in time would mean time has to be there.so everything I did or I,am going to do I,am still doing .even though I moved on to the part I already did.OK that,s simple enough.so everything is fix and we can,t change it.like a rerun of a old movie.

[donkyhotay]

And if you were traveling in a train that moves at 99.99% of the speed of light, would you be able to walk inside of it? Would you be able to see your face in the bathroom's mirror?

Of course you could, time would appear normal to you while the universe sped by while according to someone "outside" the train you would be moving extremely slow. The easiest way I know to picture the issues with relativity is to imagine a regular timeline that represents earth as a baseline. A spaceship flies away from it has it's own timeline. The spaceship timeline starts out almost parallel to the earth timeline but as it increases speed it's timeline bends away so that it is in an increasingly different direction. To people on earth the spaceship moves faster in space and slower in time, to the spaceship time is normal and the universe itself changes. Eventually as the spaceship continues to increase in speed it goes almost perpendicular to earth (speed of light) but never surpasses it because there is a slight forward momentum in the "time" direction which we can't do anything about because we can't point the engine into the time dimension, only in our current spatial dimensions. However if we could do that then the spaceship timeline would curve back and be traveling back in time and would start moving back towards the beginning of both timelines.

[3Miro]

Here is a good example. Take two atomic clocks (the most accurate that we have). Sync them (i.e. make sure they show exactly the same time). Leave one on the ground and put another one on a fast airplane, then circle around the Earth (or just fly very fast for some time). When you go back and land, the two clocks will be out of sync by an amount accurately predicted by Einstein's relativity.

In Mathematical terms, a dimension is just another variable in the equation. Time is a dimension, although it is obviously no the same as space.

The idea of something "moving" is a relative one. You can have movement of objects relative to another object, which cannot exceed the speed of light, or you can have expansion (or contraction) of space, which has no limits on "speed". The relative "velocity" of two objects is the sum of the two, which combined can exceed the speed of light.

On a small scale, when we can ignore the expansion/contraction of space (small scale is something like the size of our galaxy), one object cannot "observe" another object moving faster than the speed of light. Meaning, regardless of what you do, you will always perceive the other guys as going just a bit short of the speed of light.

I don't claim to understand all of the above. There seems so be another element, that of acceleration, which is not relative at all (i.e. acceleration is absolute). I am still working on that one.

[Lucradia]

If you were time, what would you see?

You would be able to see all instances of time before they were ever time, including both the past and the future and the present. Time exists because it does, it falls on its own safety net, and not on the nets of anything else. Like many have stated previously, Time is of a different property of space; but time has its own personal "space" as well, it's the space where all instances of everything exist all at once, suspended so that it can be chronologically placed wherever, whenever.

Unlike other "dimensions" of space (IE: 2D, 3D, 4D, etc.) Time is a 1-Dimensional line that goes in one direction from the infinite left direction starting point (You cannot have an arrow going left at the beginning of time, but at the same time, you cannot have a beginning of time.)

As such:

http://i.imgur.com/DOKJR.png

"space-time" is more of a relation between the two, than an actual new "space."

[MisterGaribaldi]

And here I thought this thread was about the t.v. show. *sigh*

[Chronon]

The idea of something "moving" is a relative one. You can have movement of objects relative to another object, which cannot exceed the speed of light, or you can have expansion (or contraction) of space, which has no limits on "speed". The relative "velocity" of two objects is the sum of the two, which combined can exceed the speed of light.
Velocity is relative by definition as you observed. However, your last sentence implies Galilean invariance rather than Lorentz invariance and contradicts special relativity. You actually need to use Einstein's velocity addition formula to add velocities so that relativity is respected:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html


On a small scale, when we can ignore the expansion/contraction of space (small scale is something like the size of our galaxy), one object cannot "observe" another object moving faster than the speed of light. Meaning, regardless of what you do, you will always perceive the other guys as going just a bit short of the speed of light.

I don't claim to understand all of the above. There seems so be another element, that of acceleration, which is not relative at all (i.e. acceleration is absolute). I am still working on that one.
I guess you were talking about mixing expansion of spacetime with motion of bodies through spacetime before. The velocity addition formula is for objects moving through spacetime. The expansion of spacetime itself does not affect the coordinates of events in spacetime, it affects the metric tensor that tells us how to calculate the distance between events in spacetime.

Acceleration implies a force on any massive object. You can feel an acceleration, but there's no way to feel the velocity of an inertial frame. Including acceleration in the discussion provides a way to move from special relativity to general relativity.

[3Miro]

I guess you were talking about mixing expansion of spacetime with motion of bodies through spacetime before.


Yes. I know in terms of flat (or almost flat space), the Lorenz formula will not allow "movement" faster than light. However, when you add the expansion of space (which does not use Lorenz's formula), the "distance" between two objects can increase faster than light and hence they may never see each other.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

And if you were traveling in a train that moves at 99.99% of the speed of light, would you be able to walk inside of it?
Yes.

Would you be able to see your face in the bathroom's mirror?Yes.


On the other hand, I'd like to be able to read the research paper instead of trying to make sense out of what a clueless journalist understood. But they do not cite their sources, how appropiate.
So would I.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Velocity is relative by definition as you observed. However, your last sentence implies Galilean invariance rather than Lorentz invariance and contradicts special relativity. You actually need to use Einstein's velocity addition formula to add velocities so that relativity is respected:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html


I guess you were talking about mixing expansion of spacetime with motion of bodies through spacetime before. The velocity addition formula is for objects moving through spacetime. The expansion of spacetime itself does not affect the coordinates of events in spacetime, it affects the metric tensor that tells us how to calculate the distance between events in spacetime.

Acceleration implies a force on any massive object. You can feel an acceleration, but there's no way to feel the velocity of an inertial frame. Including acceleration in the discussion provides a way to move from special relativity to general relativity.

Thanks, that was the piece I was missing. I had not considered that the expansion of space did not contribute to the relative velocities.

[NCLI]

Of which you have the task of choosing what you believe to be true, and what you believe to be false. So did all smart dudes in history. Proven until more evidence comes along. Sorry, but if I choose not to believe that a microwave is deadly to humans, (it may not be true) but I can believe it. That implies nothing to the notion of wether I feel our lives are led by a cosmic force or whether I feel that we make our own destinies.
All scientific theories can be tested, if you have the time and resources. General relativity has proven pretty solid so far, your microwave theory probably wouldn't :p

I really don't get the significance of the article. If space is expanding then there could be objects traveling away from us at speeds greater that the speed of light. Therefore, there could be a mass outside of our visible universe, and it could be very large. For example, I have 6 points in space and each is traveling away from each other at 25% the speed of light due to expansion of space. I could add additional points and use smaller expansion values to arrive at the same conclusion. Using a 6 point example, points A and C in the depiction below would be traveling away from each other at 50% the speed of light. Points A and E would be traveling away from each other at the speed of light. Points A and F would be traveling away from each other at 125% the speed of light; therefore, F would be invisible to us if we were located at point A. Someone located at points B, C, D, and E could still see F; such as, D would see F traveling at 50% the speed of light.



A<---.25c--->B<---.25c--->C<---.25c--->D<---.25c--->E<---.25c--->F
|<---------.5c----------->|
|<----------------------1c--------------------------|
|<--------------------------1.25c--------------------------------|
|<---------.5c----------->|

Am I missing something in the article? I have thought about the relationship of space expanding and the limitation of the speed of light since the 1970's.

Is there some theory that the universe can not expand fast enough for the individual points to exceed the speed of light with respect to each other and there is some sort of collision/compression at that boundary?

It is not possible to exceed the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, it's relative time slows down, so that it will in fact never surpass it.

A lot of you guys need to read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking, it should clear up a lot of questions.

[wilee-nilee]

And here I thought this thread was about the t.v. show. *sigh*

I had hoped for that myself.:)

I once went to a talk by a Nobel Laureate granted Quantum Physicist, he started with if you understand any of this stuff your doing better then me, laughed, then gave some basic known events.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

It is not possible to exceed the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, it's relative time slows down, so that it will in fact never surpass it.

A lot of you guys need to read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking, it should clear up a lot of questions.

The piece I was missing was supplied by Chronon in a previous post. None of the laymen books on relativity touched on the topic of the expansion of space in relationship to calculating velocity. Not everyone on these forums is a physics student. Chronon took the time to explain the misconception. The versions of the theory of relativity I read included Lorentz transforms however not the part that excluded the expansion of space.

[NCLI]

The piece I was missing was supplied by Chronon in a previous post. None of the laymen books on relativity touched on the topic of the expansion of space in relationship to calculating velocity. Not everyone on these forums is a physics student. Chronon took the time to explain the misconception.
Oh, I'm very sorry then :(

[wilee-nilee]

The piece I was missing was supplied by Chronon in a previous post. None of the laymen books on relativity touched on the topic of the expansion of space in relationship to calculating velocity. Not everyone on these forums is a physics student. Chronon took the time to explain the misconception. The versions of the theory of relativity I read included Lorentz transforms however not the part that excluded the expansion of space.

+1 that was the closest to the matter.:)

Also viva Edwin Hubble, may he RIP.

[Chronon]

It is interesting to me that the expansion of the universe doesn't actually cause the number of meters between any two otherwise nonmoving objects to change. The distance between them increases because the magnitude of the meter itself changes. In other words, suppose I arrange for meter sticks to be placed end-to-end from me to an object 2,000,000 light years from here. After some period of time the distance will have increased by 10% due to the expansion of spacetime. Ordinarily, one might think that we now need 2,200,000 meter sticks to cover the distance, however, the same number of meter sticks still covers the distance because each of the meter sticks will have expanded by the same factor.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

The versions of the theory of relativity I read included Lorentz transforms however not the part that excluded the expansion of space.

To add more to my post. I noticed that the work Lorentz did was based upon observations he made about measuring the speed of light with regard to moving objects. While contemplating the Lorentz equations, I thought to myself, what if his observations were not accurate. Could that significantly affect the theory of relativity?

[MisterGaribaldi]

No disrespect to Dr. Hawking, but let's not forget most of this stuff is still theoretical and unproven. Even Dr. Hawking doesn't even always agree with Dr. Hawking.

To use a metaphor, when I see a vessel vaporize or whatever as it tries to exceed the speed of light, then I'll believe it. Until then, it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.

People need to learn not to approach science with such religious zeal and fervor as things in science get thought of and get disproven all the time, regardless of how well-founded, well-intended, or authoritative-seeming they seem to be.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

It is interesting to me that the expansion of the universe doesn't actually cause the number of meters between any two otherwise nonmoving objects to change. The distance between them increases because the magnitude of the meter itself changes. In other words, suppose I arrange for meter sticks to be placed end-to-end from me to an object 2,000,000 light years from here. After some period of time the distance will have increased by 10% due to the expansion of spacetime. Ordinarily, one might think that we now need 2,200,000 meter sticks to cover the distance, however, the same number of meter sticks still covers the distance because each of the meter sticks will have expanded by the same factor.

That puts the problem of the expansion of space versus relative velocity in terms that many people on this forum can comprehend; however, maybe not all of us. I hadn't considered it until I read one of your previous posts.

[witeshark17]

Whatever is happening will take a while, not to worry... :popcorn:

[ki4jgt]

No disrespect to Dr. Hawking, but let's not forget most of this stuff is still theoretical and unproven. Even Dr. Hawking doesn't even always agree with Dr. Hawking.

To use a metaphor, when I see a vessel vaporize or whatever as it tries to exceed the speed of light, then I'll believe it. Until then, it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.

People need to learn not to approach science with such religious zeal and fervor as things in science get thought of and get disproven all the time, regardless of how well-founded, well-intended, or authoritative-seeming they seem to be.

POST HAS BEEN REMOVED
DUE TO: Stupidity of poster :-)

[juancarlospaco]

Both are true.

Its a cycle, it dont have a start, or an end, this universe is a self-recycling thing.
Remember when people say that Earth is flat, start here, end there...

No one have explained what Time is, time itself, whats time?
Measure = Compare; measure time?

Theres real, living, people that have been traveled in time.
So is possible, and already done...

All theory start like a linear thing, start here, end there, because is the point that actual science can measure,
on the future they discover that its a cycle, it happends again, and again, and again, and again.

Light, UV light, IR light, Wifi, microwave, all those are the same thing,
its just the same radiation of energy, but on diferent frequency.

Speed of light can be modified by gravity, look at the black holes attracting light.

Black Holes are not worm tunnels to another place, because if they are tunnels,
they should not grow ever, but they grow a little when eat things, there are diferent sizes of them.

Anyways, no one can live the time needed to see this cycle...

[witeshark17]

Both are true.

Its a cycle, it dont have a start, or an end, this universe is a self-recycling thing.
Remember when people say that Earth is flat, start here, end there...

No one have explained what Time is, time itself, whats time?
Measure = Compare; measure time?

Theres real, living, people that have been traveled in time.
So is possible, and already done...

All theory start like a linear thing, start here, end there, because is the point that actual science can measure,
on the future they discover that its a cycle, it happends again, and again, and again, and again.

Light, UV light, IR light, Wifi, microwave, all those are the same thing,
its just the same radiation of energy, but on diferent frequency.

Speed of light can be modified by gravity, look at the black holes attracting light.

Black Holes are not worm tunnels to another place, because if they are tunnels,
they should not grow ever, but they grow a little when eat things, there are diferent sizes of them.

Anyways, no one can live the time needed to see this cycle... Truly very good! Please join the Ubuntu IRC chat (search here) or try this site for links (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam) - I hope you will!

[MisterGaribaldi]

On the other hand, maybe we're all just figments of someone's deranged imagination.

And seeing as how Microsoft Sam is part of this so-called "reality" it must be a pretty deranged imagination indeed. :shock:

:lol:

[PC_load_letter]

To add more to my post. I noticed that the work Lorentz did was based upon observations he made about measuring the speed of light with regard to moving objects. While contemplating the Lorentz equations, I thought to myself, what if his observations were not accurate. Could that significantly affect the theory of relativity?

IIRC, and based on what I remember from my undergrad years, Lorentz was trying to explain the outcome of the famous Michelson & Morley experiment, where they measured the speed of light to a high degree of accuracy in two perpendicular directions to test the existence of Ether. Lorentz was trying to imply that their apparatus was affected by the movement of the earth in orbit, yielding faulty measurements. But Einestein took it much farther than that. So, it's a very good example to highlight the difference between Math & Physics. Same equations but totally different interpretations.

Einestein's relativity (special & general) theory on the macro scale has been tested to death and there is no evidence (that I know of) that it not an accurate model of gravity on large scale. On a micro (quantum) scale, that is not the case and it's still an open question to try to find a quantum physical model to describe gravity that will yield Einestein's results as a limiting case on a large scale.

[koenn]

... still theoretical and unproven. ...

... it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.


People in this thread have tried to explain that "theory" in sciences has a rather different meaning than in every day speech. Same with "proof".

Yet you keep making this noise. It's irrelevant, and annoying.

Electricity is "just a theory". Gravity, even in its most simple form ("things tend to fall down rather than up") is just a theory. "Weight" is just a concept someone made up.
(I doubt you'll understand this)


Oh, and to be clear : this is not "religious zeal and fervor" - I just have a quite low tolerance for noise.

[mobilediesel]

People in this thread have tried to explain that "theory" in sciences has a rather different meaning than in every day speech. Same with "proof".

Yet you keep making this noise. It's irrelevant, and annoying.

Electricity is "just a theory". Gravity, even in its most simple form ("things tend to fall down rather than up") is just a theory. "Weight" is just a concept someone made up.
(I doubt you'll understand this)


Oh, and to be clear : this is not "religious zeal and fervor" - I just have a quite low tolerance for noise.

That's pretty much what I wanted to say! Too many people think that "theory" is the same as "guess."

The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found.
It really isn't that difficult to understand. Most of the people who don't understand the meaning of the word "theory" don't WANT to understand it. They think scientists are trying to trick them and that scientists are "always changing their minds." "Changing their minds" and "discovering new information" are not the same thing and not even related.

Scientists don't "believe" in theories. A theory is accepted as true if available data supports it. Belief has nothing to do with it.

[3Miro]

To use a metaphor, when I see a vessel vaporize or whatever as it tries to exceed the speed of light, then I'll believe it. Until then, it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.


We have tried to accelerate single atoms and articles to close to the speed of light. That is part of what particle accelerators do. The "theory" is based on our direct observations of what is happening in those experiments (as well as other experiments, as well as what we can see from Hubble, as well as what we have seen in other fields of science).

In science, you don't get anything more than a solid theory. Electromagnetism, Gravity, Quantum Physics ... all of those (as well as the rest of science) creates as close of an approximation to reality as we can measure. Theories are always incomplete, scientists always look for new ways to test the theories and theories are changed as new information comes in. However, at any point of time, those theories give our best understanding of how things work i.e. there is no observable difference between our theories and reality.

[juancarlospaco]

Truly very good! Please join the Ubuntu IRC chat (search here) or try this site for links (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam) - I hope you will!

What?, why?, if its a joke i dont understand...

[Chronon]

To use a metaphor, when I see a vessel vaporize or whatever as it tries to exceed the speed of light, then I'll believe it. Until then, it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.After that it becomes a theory to which you can assign a higher value (in terms of usefulness). However it will always remain a theory, regardless of what you do to it. All you can do is change your personal estimation of its usefulness. You cannot convert a theory into truth by verification. You can show definitively that a theory is not true by falsification, however. This is why Karl Popper proposed that the engine for scientific progress is falsification, not verification. Falsification allows us to cut down the number of candidate models and refine our understanding.


People need to learn not to approach science with such religious zeal and fervor as things in science get thought of and get disproven all the time, regardless of how well-founded, well-intended, or authoritative-seeming they seem to be.
People here do not seem to be approaching it with zeal and fervor. They have been trying to establish the meanings of terms used in science so that we can actually communicate.

Every scientist should agree that relativity isn't true in any ontological sense. However, it is undeniably useful. Newton's mechanics can also be undeniably useful within certain well described limits.

[sudoer541]

This is how science works, it is almost never solid. New theories replace/attack the existing ones and the cycle goes on and on.

[MisterGaribaldi]

You can't verify a theory? Really?

Many theories have been verified over the years. Not all theories are capable of being put to the test at any given time due to lack of resources, technology, or some other factor.

For instance, I do believe aerodynamic lift theories and other related theories have been verified and proven true. Just saying...

[Chronon]

You can only show consistency between a theory and a particular set of observations. You cannot ever show the truth of a theory. For this reason scientists don't talk about truth -- it is a matter left for philosophers.

Aerodynamics would be the theory. This theory predicts lift for certain shapes of objects in a flowing gas (i.e. Bernoulli's principle). This prediction is consistent with our observations, so we consider it to be useful. It's always possible for someone to conduct a new test of the theory and for the theory to fail. In view of this, any consistency with an experiment should not be viewed as verification of truth.

Most of engineering is based on Newtonian mechanics. Obviously it works in that role, yet hardly anyone will call it true despite these successes.

[jrothwell97]

Theory means "not fact". Most theories are presented as facts, or taken as fact, when in fact, they are not. :)

Try telling that to the theory of gravity.

Theory means "well-substantiated explanation with evidence to back it up." Something postulated to fill a stop-gap, which has yet to be tested for veracity, is called a "hypothesis." Something that is "not fact" is called horses**te. ;)

[wilee-nilee]

Science based theories, are reached using a scientific method. Also known as scientific inquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Beliefs_and_biases

Music theory is based on known facts, in regard to the use of the chromatic 12 tone scale, in chords or scales ...etc.

I think many here have equated scientific theory, with theories that have no basis in research, but are conjecture, not the same thing, although the key word theory is the constant, it is the type of which is important. Just using the word theory by itself as a argument for or against its meaning is ridiculous, they're typologies attached to this word which differ greatly.

A scientific theory has to be peer reviewed and shown to be replicable, and empirical. It is true that this is a flexible theory but to move it you have to prove your hypothesis with research, then go through the process of peer review by the scientific community, and have it be considered as empirical in nature.

I always love arguments against scientific theories as they invariably show the lack of knowledge in the realisation of the typologies of theories, and expose the bias of the argument against with no proof, even close to what is needed to have a accepted science based theory.

[sudoer541]

I mean, for years there have been saying "The big bang theory" is accurate. Now they came up with this...so it kinda proves my point!):P

[wilee-nilee]

I mean, for years there have been saying "The big bang theory" is accurate. Now they came up with this...so it kinda proves my point!):P

Sorry Stewie, but you have no argument that shows a inkling of understanding, no soup for you.:)

[GabrielYYZ]

I mean, for years there have been saying "The big bang theory" is accurate. Now they came up with this...so it kinda proves my point!):P

yeah, we all know the gravitational theory is trash 'cause birds can fly, right? exit(sarcasm);


seems to challenge our understanding of the Big Bang.

there's always stuff challenging our understanding of everything... quantum mechanics challenges scientists' understanding of almost everything they knew before that, does that mean everything else is wrong? no, it just means we have to look at things from a different perspective.

also, someone correct me if i'm wrong, i've heard Lawrence Krauss say the big bang theory is the best explanation so far, i've never heard him or Neil deGrasse Tyson saying it's "accurate".

a theory can always change if new information is found, as opposed to dogma.

[wilee-nilee]

Just got a email today on this from a subscribed source.
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2011/20110106.htm

Whoa tubular man.:)

[GabrielYYZ]

Just got a email today on this from a subscribed source.
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2011/20110106.htm

Whoa tubular man.:)

the michelin man's in there! :-o

[NCLI]

No disrespect to Dr. Hawking, but let's not forget most of this stuff is still theoretical and unproven. Even Dr. Hawking doesn't even always agree with Dr. Hawking.

To use a metaphor, when I see a vessel vaporize or whatever as it tries to exceed the speed of light, then I'll believe it. Until then, it may be a very solid theory, but it's still just that.

People need to learn not to approach science with such religious zeal and fervor as things in science get thought of and get disproven all the time, regardless of how well-founded, well-intended, or authoritative-seeming they seem to be.

Of course, scientists are often proven wrong, but there seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding of the general scientific consensus today in this thread.

[sudoer541]

I am still holding tight on my opinion!!!:)

[dh04000]

Of course, scientists are often proven wrong, but there seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding of the general scientific consensus today in this thread.


The only constant thing in science is change! Always expect things to change with new data. As a scientist myself, I make the best theory with the given data available. Some scientists and the public get attached to an idea and find it hard to let it go, even when new data is presented to them. (Don't make me bring up the Pluto incident. Let it go people! Its not a planet anymore, and no amount of complaining is going to fix that!)

If new data says that there is something wrong with the big bang, then science will just adjust to the new data. Don't get offended when things change, that's just how science works, don't fight progress, go with the flow. When a scientist is proven wrong, it doesn't make them a bad scientist. He didn't have the data he needed to make the right theory to produce the right solution. A mark of a good scientist is being able to change the way they think and abandon the old for the new and better when new data is found.

Einstein is famous for defending Steady State theory til the day he died, because in his mind the universe was too beautiful and prefect to just die one day due to over expansion. He wasn't being a good scientist.

[sinclair86]

I can see what is ment by when you say noise. Having just read through the past 12 pages, it could be reduced to just a page, or two, of actually stimulating content. I am not one to point fingers, but I must say that our education system in combination of what is shown to us via media and in society is to blame.

So before any smartass says that all I am doing is contributing to the noise, take that time to reflect on your life and the meaningless insignificant events that occur within them. For once you and the ones that have a memory of you are gone, as fades your existence as an individual. You might be lucky enough to be remembered as group (group meaning individuals that are lumped together have no names or faces and only belong to the group which they are being referred to, at the time). What we do and everything we know is thanks to the people that came before us. If it had not been for their trail and error, every time we are born, we would be starting from a blank slate and history would repeat itself within a shorter time span. To stop pussyfooting around, instead of posting nonsense to a rather stimulating discussion (although the topic has evolved into something than what was originally ment), sign off your computer, and continue picking the cotton that makes clothes. I have little tolerance of people who are narrow sighted or believe they fully understand something when they know nothing of the topic other then a quick google search and reading of the first result it spews out. Then assume that within that link it is everything one needs to know of, on, or about the topic. You are the type of person who make society go backwards as a whole instead of helping it progress forward. Its what makes and why history will forever will repeat itself.

(no im not talking to you nc1 chronon greywolf i think there might have been one other but reading through all that and then typing all this out I feel as I missed one.)

[sinclair86]

Also just so I contribute something to the person who used the cars as an example, you applied the theory incorrectly. Say car A is traveling 40 mph and car B is traveling 80 mph. Now as car B approaches A there will be a point in time where they will be suspended in time together but then as it passes the further car B travels from A the slower car A will be seem to be moving. At a point in the distance there will be a time where car B will appear stationary.

[MadCow108]

Einstein is famous for defending Steady State theory til the day he died, because in his mind the universe was too beautiful and prefect to just die one day due to over expansion. He wasn't being a good scientist.

No he didn't. He abandoned it as soon as hubbles results where accepted by the community.
He might have not liked it, but still the cosmological constant was removed from the theory (just to reappear in the 90ies due to new discoveries again ;) )
It is rumored that he considered the introduction before hubbles data was available (and thus drawing a conclusion on no grounds) as one of his biggest mistakes.

[TriBlox6432]

Genesis 1:1 from an atheist perspective: In the beginning there was nothing. Then, it exploded.


My point: You can't disprove my God, and my God is not in conflict with science.