Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 160 of 160

Thread: Evolution of the Universe

  1. #101  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Dishmaster

    I know this is a divergence from the main query. However, what you said about theories is of interest to me. I have always been a bit chary of the public's idea of 'theory', mainly because of the creationists who constantly say that "evolution is just a theory".

    Do you think, perhaps, science should have another level of strength in its models? Currently we have hypothesis and theory. Yet some scientific ideas are so robust, and so unlikely to be altered, that calling them a theory is IMHO, misleading.

    I would like to see a third level of strength in our scientific models. Perhaps we could call this the scientific principle, or similar. Then, such things as biological evolution, or the atomic model of matter, could be called the 'principle of biological evolution', or the 'atomic principle'.

    In astronomy, we get, for example, the idea that dark matter is made of neutralinos as a hypothesis. The idea of inflation has a lot more evidence, so it becomes a theory. And the Big Bang model is so unlikely to be proven incorrect that it becomes the Big Bang Principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Dishmaster,

    since, by now, we only got little information about the universe. Human mankind only set off to space, but we didn't go beyond the moon.

    Some folks still insist on even landing on the moon was being fake.

    We made great progress compared to the past, which was not to be mistaken. But we kind of rowing a boat closed to the shore. We don't sail across the ocean.

    skeptic,

    I'm sorry, I didn't want to interfere with your post, but I had to answer.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Steve, no problem. If dishmaster wishes to respond to my query, he will.

    On your analogy about rowing close to shore.

    We will never travel far enough to make a difference in terms of learning about cosmology.
    The furthest humans are likely to ever travel, even if we take millions of years to do it, is still within our own galaxy. There is no way, even in theory, of travelling faster than light. If we travel at, say, half the speed of light, it would take 4 million years to travel to the Andromeda Galaxy, which would seem to be impossible.

    However, astronomers are receiving new and better tools all the time. With these new tools, they are learning more and more about the universe. We already know things that would be pure fantasy 50 years ago. In another 50 years, we will know so much more. We need not wait for developments in space travel, and would gain little if we did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Right, neverteless I doubt we will not travel to distant galaxies. In fact, I think, we will.

    We won't travel in space ships, but with the help of other means, though, which will come true one day.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Right, neverteless I doubt we will not travel to distant galaxies. In fact, I think, we will.

    We won't travel in space ships, but with the help of other means, though, which will come true one day.

    Steve
    That is the established pattern, yes. We were fish not long ago. One time, we didn't even have a membrane.

    Life eventually entrains everything it touches. So what will life do in the galaxy?



    @Skeptic. I sympathize with you about "theory". Try the inverse though, maybe fix two problems at once: Instead of hardening some ideas, soften some. Let me mangle your example:
    the idea that dark matter is made of neutralinos as a hypothesis
    becomes
    the idea that dark matter is made of neutralinos as a speculation
    Formal definition of speculation: an hypothesis based upon an hypothesis.

    This distinction would actually help scientists "reality check" somewhat IMO. Because in some areas we've extended so far it's easy to forget by what convolutions the original theory is connected (for me anyway ).

    Ideas then from wildest to soundest would be: speculation, hypothesis, theory. And laypeople would pick up on that, and think "Oh, it's a theory now. Well that's the highest honour."

    Best of all it's actually feasible.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pong

    I understand your point. The problem is that word meanings tend not to change in popular useage, until mangled by Hollywood. I think it might be difficult to get the widely recognised meaning of the word 'theory' changed. That is why I thought a new word might be better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Pong, do I need to answer something? If yes, I got no idea what you were saying.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, the concept of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead us to doubt even our own existence!

    In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

    rsridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    This is an interesting piece of video on evolution -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV3Xa3jPxsg

    rsridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. Called Hubble's Law this observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
    This observation (Hubble's Law) also supports the exact opposite: the collapsing of the universe and suggests that the universe is cyclic.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Science is based on empirical evidence. And the empirical evidence shows clearly that there was a Big Bang, and that was the origin of the universe.
    pffft ... wow ... "clearly"?! ... do try to wrap your head around the following and do please disprove:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
    Spaghettification = proximity effect of black hole gravity; the closer to the core, the faster the rate of acceleration. Meaning that if one were to dive into a black hole, the pull of gravity on your head would be greater than that on your feet, causing you to be stretched out. And your bellybutton would see an accelerating expansion from both your head and feet; thus, explaining the redshift between galaxies ... but wait ... there's more ...

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    For example : the fact that [distant] galaxies ... are closer together than galaxies nearer ... [and] are viewed as they were earlier in the history of the universe, and the universe had not then expanded so much, meaning that they were closer together. Empirical evidence demonstrating the reality of the expansion of the universe following the Big Bang.
    Couldn't it be argued that the galactic clustering is located in the outskirts of a spiraling universe? Similar to that of star clusters in a spiral galaxy, there's much more formation activity in the outer stretches as more particles are gradually sucked in by the supermassive black hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The spectroscopic analysis of stars in that earlier universe match the elemental composition predicted by their younger age. More Hydrogen. Less Helium. Little in the way of heavier elements ... As consistent with a young and expanding universe following the Big Bang.
    Again, with the super-ultramassive black hole model in mind, the outer-lying galaxies consist largely of fresh, elementally simple particulates being sucked in. I'll even go as far to hypothesize the origin of these particles using the empirical evidence of Hawking Radiation
    ::: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins_radiation :::
    Rooted in thermodynamics and recent observations, black holes create and emit particles that are ejected from its poles in a swirling vortex of super-heated gas.

    It isn't unreasonable to speculate that these very particles eventually succomb to the black hole's gravity (collideing and combining along the way); thusly continueing the creation of new star systems and galaxies consisting of simple elements initially and developing heavier elements as they journey to the core of the universe to restart the whole process again.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The fact that no-one fully understands [the Big Bang] is irrelevent. It happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    We do not understand the Big Bang. But one thing is clear. It happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that the Big Bang was real.
    How annoying. You're starting to sound like a Bible-thumping Christian rallying for Jesus ::: I for one, am not willing to join you in your leap of faith. I find it offensive to push closed-minded ideals on a platform that is based on open-mindedness ::: it's "Evolution of the Universe" not "Big Bang is the Boss"

    It's thinking such as yours that perpetuates religious persecution; better yet, people like that make crap up to integrate out-dated ideals (i.e. dark energy / matter to explain the accelerating expansion when the BB model predicts the exact opposite).

    More evidence further supporting the Inter-Universal Black Hole theory ::: the gravitational influence from the black hole effecting galaxies becomes Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Run the numbers yourself. If you substitute the 'lamda' in Einstein's field equation of General Relativity with Newton's Law of Gravitation, you'll find that the results 'fall into place.' <<< haha ... black hole reference, very punny.

    But, but, what about the CMB?! How d'ya explain that?! Glad u asked ... it's merely a byproduct of the super-ultramassive black hole. Instead of old decaying light waves from the explosion of the big bang, it's old decaying light waves from the giant event horizon growing in the center of our universe.

    So you see? The same empirical evidence that you tout as undeniable confirmation of the BB theory also fully supports my Super-UltraMassive Black Hole theory, without the need of fabricating fantastic repelling properties of mystical dark energy.

    To sum it all up, this model not only elequently explains all that's observed to date and is supported by many strong-standing theories and laws (not the BB theory), it implies the universe is cyclic and self-contained, an ever-evolving entity, a systematic chain of events, with no means of determining an age, no discernable beginning, no ending, only processes of stripping matter to its basic form and weaving this wonderfully intricate tapestry of observable universe. And to think, there's so much left to discover...

    So c'mon boys!! Take your gloves off and lemme feel your knuckles! Punch my story full of plot holes ... if you can.
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To 6.

    I also find a comment of your annoying. That is : your suggestion that I have made a leap of faith in accepting the Big Bang.

    I find belief by faith utterly abhorrent, and the sign of a gullible idiot. When you suggest I do the same, you are, possibly unwittingly, putting me in the same category.

    The evidence for an expanding universe is not faith. It is solid data from a wide range of sources, including red shifts, closer galaxies in the old universe, more colliding galaxies in the old universe, younger stars in the old universe, the microwave background and more. There is no doubt that the universe is expanding. There is no doubt that the universe was smaller by a substantial amount billions of years ago. Extend that into the past, and the universe clearly was very, very small 13.7 billion years ago. The microwave background is exactly the temperature we expect from 13.7 billion years of expansion after a Big Bang.

    This is not faith. This is solid data. Good empirical evidence gained from objective research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Spaghettification = proximity effect of black hole gravity; the closer to the core, the faster the rate of acceleration. Meaning that if one were to dive into a black hole, the pull of gravity on your head would be greater than that on your feet, causing you to be stretched out. And your bellybutton would see an accelerating expansion from both your head and feet; thus, explaining the redshift between galaxies ... but wait ... there's more ...
    The red shift is the same in every direction, so if it was due to spagettification it would mean that the center is close to us. Where is it?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    This observation (Hubble's Law) also supports the exact opposite: the collapsing of the universe and suggests that the universe is cyclic.
    Really? How? Redshift indicates a movement away from the observer.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
    Spaghettification = proximity effect of black hole gravity; the closer to the core, the faster the rate of acceleration. Meaning that if one were to dive into a black hole, the pull of gravity on your head would be greater than that on your feet, causing you to be stretched out. And your bellybutton would see an accelerating expansion from both your head and feet; thus, explaining the redshift between galaxies ... but wait ... there's more ...
    This does not support your view. Yes, such a phenomenon exists. But we measure an isotropic redshift in all directions. For your idea to be able to explain this observations, we would have to be in the centre of a Black Hole. But this would prevent us from seeing beyond the event horizon.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Couldn't it be argued that the galactic clustering is located in the outskirts of a spiraling universe? Similar to that of star clusters in a spiral galaxy, there's much more formation activity in the outer stretches as more particles are gradually sucked in by the supermassive black hole.
    No. A galaxy is a planar configuration, while the reduction of distances between individual young galaxies with increasing distance from us is a spherical phenomenon, i.e. we see it in every direction, not only in the plane of a hypothetical rotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The spectroscopic analysis of stars in that earlier universe match the elemental composition predicted by their younger age. More Hydrogen. Less Helium. Little in the way of heavier elements ... As consistent with a young and expanding universe following the Big Bang.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Again, with the super-ultramassive black hole model in mind, the outer-lying galaxies consist largely of fresh, elementally simple particulates being sucked in. I'll even go as far to hypothesize the origin of these particles using the empirical evidence of Hawking Radiation
    ::: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins_radiation :::
    Rooted in thermodynamics and recent observations, black holes create and emit particles that are ejected from its poles in a swirling vortex of super-heated gas.
    I am confused. The jets we see do not contain matter that was ejected from the Black Hole but originates from an accretion disc surrounding the active galactic nucleus. This is just matter that is deflected and accelerated before falling into the Black Hole.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    It isn't unreasonable to speculate that these very particles eventually succomb to the black hole's gravity (collideing and combining along the way); thusly continueing the creation of new star systems and galaxies consisting of simple elements initially and developing heavier elements as they journey to the core of the universe to restart the whole process again.
    Still, the chemical composition of new stars is determined by the material from which those stars are formed, i.e. insterstellar gas and dust. The enrichment of this matter with heavier elements has evolved in time, because the heaviest elements can only be produced by supernovae. This means that stars with a low abundance of heavy elements must be very old, while the youngest generation of stars contain lots of those elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The fact that no-one fully understands [the Big Bang] is irrelevent. It happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    We do not understand the Big Bang. But one thing is clear. It happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that the Big Bang was real.
    I largely support this. I would just lower the confidence a bit by saying that in all likelihood, we can conclude that the universe was most probably created by a phenomenon that we call Big Bang or something very similar.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    More evidence further supporting the Inter-Universal Black Hole theory ::: the gravitational influence from the black hole effecting galaxies becomes Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Run the numbers yourself. If you substitute the 'lamda' in Einstein's field equation of General Relativity with Newton's Law of Gravitation, you'll find that the results 'fall into place.'
    Show it or give a reference!
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    But, but, what about the CMB?! How d'ya explain that?! Glad u asked ... it's merely a byproduct of the super-ultramassive black hole. Instead of old decaying light waves from the explosion of the big bang, it's old decaying light waves from the giant event horizon growing in the center of our universe.
    How do you explain the perfect Black Body spectrum of the CMB? If we were inside a gaint BH, the entire universe would be flooded with intense radiation like X rays. And where is the matter falling into the BH? Instead of a redshift, we should see lots of blueshifted material that is attracted to the centre of the BH. The observation is contradicting with this idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Finally, some real feedback. Thank you all for responding so far. Glad I finally rattled someone's cage.

    I'm not saying we're in a black hole but rather maybe ALL of our observable universe could be sitting on the outter rim of a planar, spiralling universe that is driven by a super-ultramassive black hole.

    Redshift = accelerating expansion = mild influence of spaghettification-type effect in all directions that WE can observe with our LIMITED means appearing to be within a sphereical phenomenon

    We're not close enough to see the event horizon; similar to our inability to observe the event horizon within our own galaxy.

    The CMB is light waves from the BB (presumably) that have stretched out over distance and time, transforming them into microwaves. I'm arguing that same light process is happening, only that the light's origin is of those waves are those that successfully escaped the event horizon of the super-ultramassive black hole, explaining the consistent uniformity.

    I suspect the basis for my arument lies within the redshift. And lack the scientific jargon to explain it in different words other than what I've said previously: using spaghettification to visualize the accelerating repulsion. Let me throw this at you guys ::: How can the spiral galaxy NOT be upscaled, say, to the point where observable galaxies are the equivalent of star systems within our own galaxy?

    And thx again guys ... I've been stewing on this for months and been driving my family nuts. Oh yeah ::: to embrace BB in evidence of accelerating 'expansion' = embrace Dark Energy = leap of faith ::: BB cannot support "accelerating"
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Found this a couple weeks ago:
    ::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9QzxWPABrs :::
    Terrible video, but a descent slide show visually representing what I've been babbling about.

    - mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    : to embrace BB in evidence of accelerating 'expansion' = embrace Dark Energy = leap of faith :
    Just a crucial point to be made here. The evidence points towards an acceleration of the expansion and for this to happen requires energy. We dont know where this energy is coming from yet, so we call it dark energy. There is no leap of faith here.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    What we can observe is limited, we cant see more than beyond billions of light years away, can we? If so what if the universe is a gazillion gazillion times larger than the largest estimate we have?

    About unknown force causing expansion
    On a purely philosophical level, can existance as we know it only be if there are more than one force, that these multiple forces must oppose and attract energy/stuff in an alternating manner, and must start and end with repulsive forces?

    I mean, why was there a big bang, wouldnt the gravity make the initial universe the mother of all black holes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. Called Hubble's Law this observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
    This observation (Hubble's Law) also supports the exact opposite: the collapsing of the universe and suggests that the universe is cyclic.
    May be 6nqpnw read the following latest model of our Universe with “Open” mind, he would agree that we are presently in the phase of an expanding Universe after an initial Big Bang. The Big Bang scenario has been taken for granted by most of the astrophysicists.

    "Runaway universe" may collapse in 10 billion years, new studies predict

    The recent discovery that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate has led many astronomers to forecast a dark and lonely future for our galaxy. According to some predictions, the rapidly accelerating universe will cause all galaxies to run away from each other until they are no longer visible. In this widely accepted scenario, our own Milky Way will become an isolated island adrift in a sea of totally black space 150 billion years from now.

    But two new studies by Stanford University cosmologists suggest that it may be time to rethink this popular view of a "runaway universe." Instead of expanding exponentially, our cosmos may be in danger of collapsing in a "mere" 10 to 20 billion years, according to the Stanford team.

    "The standard vision at the moment is that the universe is speeding up," said physics Professor Andrei Linde, "so we were surprised to find that a collapse could happen within such a short amount of time."

    Linde and his wife, Renata Kallosh -- also a professor of physics at Stanford -- have authored two companion studies that raise the possibility of a cosmic "big crunch." Both papers are available on the physics research website, www.arXiv.org.

    "We tried our best to come up with a good theory that explains the acceleration of the universe, but ours is just a model," Linde noted. "It's just part of the answer."
    If the Linde-Kallosh model is correct, then the universe, which appears to be accelerating now, will begin to slow down and contract.

    "The universe may be doomed to collapse and disappear," Linde said. "Everything we see now, and at a much larger distance that we cannot see, will collapse into a point smaller than a proton. Locally, it will be the same as if you were inside a black hole. You will just discontinue your existence."

    Einstein's "blunder"

    The fate of the cosmos has been hotly debated for decades.

    In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein, along with most physicists, believed that the universe was static -- even though the equations he developed for his general theory of relativity in 1917 suggested that space itself was either contracting or expanding.

    To ensure that his new theory was consistent with nature, Einstein invented the "cosmological constant": an arbitrary mathematical term he inserted into his equations to guarantee a static universe -- at least on paper. To Einstein, the cosmological constant may have represented some kind of invisible energy that exists in the vacuum of empty space -- a force strong enough to repel the gravitational force exerted by matter. Without this mysterious vacuum energy opposing gravity, the universe eventually would crash in on itself, according to general relativity theory.

    But observations by astronomer Edwin Hubble and others in the 1920s proved that distant galaxies are not stationary but are, in fact, moving away from one another. Since the universe was expanding, Einstein no longer needed an antigravity factor in his equations, so he rejected the cosmological constant as irrelevant.

    "First Einstein introduced the cosmological constant in his equations, then he said that this was the biggest blunder of his life," Linde observed. "But I recently heard that, apparently, he still liked the idea and discussed it many years later -- and continued writing equations that included it."

    Dark energy

    Fast-forward to 1998, when two independent teams of astronomers discovered that not only is the universe expanding; it is doing so at an ever-faster pace. Their findings were based on observations of supernovae -- exploding stars that emit extraordinarily bright light.

    A supernova is a rare event, but new telescopes equipped with sophisticated electronic sensors allowed the research teams to track dozens of stellar explosions in the sky. What they saw astonished the world of astronomy: The supernovae, it turned out, actually were speeding up at a rate that outpaced the predicted gravitational pull of matter.

    What force could be strong enough to overcome gravity and cause the universe to accelerate? Perhaps Einstein was right all along -- maybe there is some kind of vacuum energy in space. Einstein called it the cosmological constant, and 80 years later, astronomers would give this invisible force a new name -- dark energy.

    "The supernova experiments four years ago confirmed a simple picture of the universe where approximately 30 percent of it is made of matter and 70 percent is made of dark energy -- whatever it is," Linde observed.

    Overnight, a concept that Einstein had rejected was now considered the dominant force in the universe.

    "The cosmological constant remains one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics," Linde pointed out.

    Negative energy

    Current predictions that dark energy will continue to overwhelm gravity and produce a runaway universe are based on the assumption that the total density of dark energy in the universe is greater than zero and will remain so forever.

    This seems obvious at first glance, since logic dictates that the density of dark energy has to be a positive number. After all, how could the universe be filled with "negative energy"?

    But in the strange world of quantum physics and elementary particle theory, everyday logic doesn't always apply.

    "During the last year, physicists came to the realization that it is very difficult to understand the origin of positive dark energy in the most advanced versions of elementary particle theory -- such as string theory and extended supergravity," Linde said.

    "We have found that some of the best attempts to describe dark energy predict that it will gradually become negative, which will cause the universe to become unstable, then collapse," he added. "People who studied general relativity many years ago were aware of this, but to them, this was an academic possibility. It was weird to think about negative vacuum energy seriously. Now we have some reasons to believe it."

    The Linde-Kallosh model produced another surprising result: The cosmos will collapse in 10 to 20 billion years -- a timeframe comparable with the age of the universe, which is estimated to be about 14 billion years old.

    "This was really strange," Linde recalled. "Physicists have known that dark energy could become negative and the universe could collapse sometime in the very distant future, perhaps in a trillion years, but now we see that we might be, not in the beginning, but in the middle of the life cycle of our universe."

    The good news, wrote Linde and Kallosh, is that "we still have a lot of time to find out whether this is going to happen."

    Cosmic bubbles

    Linde is quick to acknowledge that the collapsing universe scenario is not the final word on the fate of the cosmos.

    "Astronomy is a science once known for its continuous errors," he quipped. "There was even a joke: 'Astrophysicists are always in error but never in doubt.' We are just in the very beginning of our investigation of this issue, and it would be incorrect to interpret our results as a reliable doomsday prediction. In any case, our model teaches us an interesting lesson: Even the most abstract theories of elementary particles may end up having great importance in helping us understand the fate of the universe and the fate of humanity."

    Direct observation of space with state-of-the-art telescopes, satellites and other instruments will answer many unresolved questions, he added. "We're entering the era of precision cosmology, where we really can get a lot of data, and these data become more precise. Perhaps 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, I don't know, but this is the timescale in which we will get a map of the universe with all its observable parts. So things that were a matter of speculation will gradually become better and better established."

    Linde helped pioneer inflationary cosmology -- the theory that the universe began not with a fiery big bang but with an extraordinarily rapid expansion (inflation) of space in a vacuum-like state. According to inflationary theory, what we call the universe is just a minute fraction of a much larger cosmos.

    "The universe actually looks, not like a bubble, but like a bubble producing new bubbles," Linde explained. "We live in a tiny part of one bubble, and we look around and say, 'This is our universe.' "

    If our bubble collapses into a point, a new bubble is likely to inflate somewhere else -- possibly giving rise to an entirely new form of life, Linde said.

    "Our part of the universe may die, but the universe as a whole, in a sense, is immortal -- it just changes its properties," he concluded. "People want to understand their place in the universe, how it was created and how it all will end -- if at all. That is something that I would be happy to know the answer to and would pay my taxpayer money for. After all, it was never easy to look into the future, but it is possible to do so, and we should not miss our chance."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Taken for granted?! Perhaps, but I'm still not convinced the BB ever happened in the first place and we're consequently on a wild goose chase. And there's nothing in the above article that leads me to believe otherwise.

    general theory of relativity in 1917 suggested that space itself was either contracting or expanding.
    You catch that ... ? expanding OR contracting. Observing a redshift means things are moving away from us ... not neccesarily expanding, allowing the possibility of collapsing ... right now ... in this very moment ... and the numbers / formulas support this claim.

    Why does the universe get such special treatment, a model all on its own?! Why can't it follow known patterns ::: electrons spin around an atomic nucleus, planets around a star, stars around a galaxy; so why not galaxies around a core of some sort, and so on? ... especially when this model fits with all that is observed to date?

    Noone here (as well as other forums) has shown me otherwise, or maybe I'm just too thick-headed to acknowledge it. Either way, I'm not convinced BB is an accurate model and should be revisited. Too much of our data are based off of a BB assumption, rendering it all inaccurate, irrelevant, and useless, IMHO.

    Here's the challenge ::: if we were to determine the direction and velocity of all galaxies, what would it show? Random, scattered, unpredictable paths? Or would they all be generally headed in one direction?

    [/quote]
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    @Dishmaster

    1. Do you now see how an observer can see redshift when all objects are headed in the same true direction?? (as opposed to relative direction: redshift = relative to observer) :::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9QzxWPABrs:::

    2. I was using spaghettification as a visual aid, not claiming we are under its influence or in an event horizon ... not at all. I was trying to illustrate how redshift is effected via gravity in a planar, spiral model.

    3. This is the one I wanna chew on with ya :::
    the reduction of distances between individual young galaxies with increasing distance from us is a spherical phenomenon, i.e. we see it in every direction, not only in the plane of a hypothetical rotation.
    Would you reference / elaborate on this a bit?? Are you saying the further we look outward, galaxies become younger ... in every direction? Furthermore, younger galaxies are more tightly grouped, indicating they are expanding from a common origin?
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    1. Do you now see how an observer can see redshift when all objects are headed in the same true direction?? (as opposed to relative direction: redshift = relative to observer) :::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9QzxWPABrs:::
    I guess you are not surprised that I consider this as utter nonsense. This video contains a lot of wrong statements that are either based on a lack of knowledge or misunderstandings.
    a) The portrayed picture is not a theory - it is a model. Not even the Big Bang model is a real theory in the scientific sense, rather a hypothesis. In the Big Bang picture, it did not begin with an explosion of the singularity. This is nonsense, because it would need space to eject the matter into. But there was none. This is a frequent misconception. According to current teaching, the force that caused the Big Bang (ill-conceived wording for my taste) is the same that still powers the expansion. And its nature is unknown. We call it Dark Energy just because we have no better term for it. So, while the tiny universe was expanding, it dragged everything with it. And please, do not visualise it as an expanding sphere, because you again need something, where it is expanding into - i.e. space.

    b) I can't help it, but all I see in these viewgraphs is the description of the expansion of space. Where is the collapse? I don't see it. According to that illustration, everything is pulled outward, hence quite the opposite to what I would call a collapse. Collapse does not mean that something is moving in our direction relative to an arbitrary point of reference that again has its own velocity relative to something.

    c) A typical argument of self-proclaimed scientists is that a certain phenomenon that has been used in a currently portrayed model has never actually been observed or fully explained, like the force that drives the expansion, should be an argument against the validity of that model. Very strange, because this is how science evolves. Of course, there are first things we don not know before we know them. Where is the difference in inventing yet another force - equally mysterious - that is now pulling from the outside, whatever that means?

    There is another problem. Such a model would inevitably mean that we are in the middle of the universe, because we observe the same redshift behaviour in each direction. This means, all galaxies reach the maximum observable redshift at the same distance from us. If the "barrier" would have a different distance from us in one direction, we would be able to measure larger redshifts in this direction than in the opposite way. But this not what we see.

    d) I have the impression that there is a misunderstanding about what "accelerated expansion" means. It is not that the apparent velocity increases with distance. You would even observe this with a constant expansion, and it is expressed by the Hubble constant. This describes by how much we measure an increase in the apparent velocity of an object per distance unit. Currently, we measure something close to 70 km/s per Megaparsec. So, for every additional Megaparsec distance, you measure an additional velocity increase of 70 km/s. This is exactly what is shown in the viewgraphs of the video. It only demonstrates the fundamental law of relativity that there is no absolute velocity in the universe. You would measure the same phenomenon, if you would investigate the relative velocities of dots painted on the surface of an expanding balloon. Accelerated expansion means that this Hubble constant is in fact not constant, but possibly changes in time, i.e. the relation between redshift and distance is not linear. In the model with the balloon, accelerated expansion means that someone is pumping in the air more quickly than before.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    2. I was using spaghettification as a visual aid, not claiming we are under its influence or in an event horizon ... not at all. I was trying to illustrate how redshift is effected via gravity in a planar, spiral model.
    Yes, and this contradicts what we see. Cosmological redshift is not a planar phenomenon.
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    3. This is the one I wanna chew on with ya :::
    the reduction of distances between individual young galaxies with increasing distance from us is a spherical phenomenon, i.e. we see it in every direction, not only in the plane of a hypothetical rotation.
    Would you reference / elaborate on this a bit?? Are you saying the further we look outward, galaxies become younger ... in every direction? Furthermore, younger galaxies are more tightly grouped, indicating they are expanding from a common origin?
    The observational result is that the farther you look, the closer the individual galaxies are grouped and galactic merging processes occur. This clearly shows that galaxies have been packed more closely in earlier times which can only be explained by a "smaller" universe. And yes - in every direction.

    Another question: How do you explain the cosmic microwave background? If you take the model shown in the video seriously, there should be barrier somewhere. What happens when the matter reaches that barrier? Does it disappear, or is it destroyed via tidal forces similar to matter that falls into a Black Hole? Then, we should be able to measure the radiation that is produced by this process, and it should have very high energies like gamma and X ray. But all we measure is microwave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Here's the challenge ::: if we were to determine the direction and velocity of all galaxies, what would it show? Random, scattered, unpredictable paths? Or would they all be generally headed in one direction?
    Probably it would show, there was a little truth in all of the possibilities you mentioned.

    The universe, only by its dimensions, was sufficiently large to allow certain other regions of it to expand or to contract, or to even be cosmologically constant, all of the same time. It was highly likely, to say the least. In some way I think we have to accept this as a matter of fact, to go on with the show.

    I'd like to add an other thought to the debate. At some point I think we need to ask, how much do we know of the actual substance of the universe? Has it got a texture? Does it feature a certain fabric? Was it sooner tissue like, which could be an other, farer flung - I would say, possibility, too.? We need to try to understand about the universe as kind of of a structure to see what it does, to come closer to understand about the evolution of it.

    That's what this thread has been being about.

    I wouldn't ring for a doctor, if there was a fire to be extinguished, would I?

    Steve

    :edited:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    @Dishmaster

    a) & b) I just got my hands on 'Universe Sandbox,' so I'm gonna play for a bit to see if I can get a proportional redshift with a planar spiral model.

    c) Don't bother attacking my credibility as I have none, nor will I 'self-proclaim' otherwise. I do understand the importance of speculation, brain-storming (as u mentioned) to fill in the gaps for progress sake. I'm arguing there's gotta be a better model of the universe, one that minimizes the need for such speculations. I personally think 'exploding from a singularity creating all that we see today' is hogwash, and apparently you do as well ... at least we agree on something.

    d) A couple days ago I started wrapping my head around the 'expanding space' phenomenon and its 'pushing' effect, which is carrying galaxies with it during it's growth.

    Answer to Another Question regarding CMB: if all our observable universe is within the outer regions (not middle or center, but outer, as I've been suggesting the whole time) of a spiral planar configuration with a super-ultramassive black hole driving the whole system, then ALL observable microwaves in 'empty space' could be sourced back to the black hole as Visible, UV, XRay, and Gamma rays emanating from its 'core' ... or is that impossible? Is CMB the surface area of a sphere or the volume within the sphere? I'm under the impression it's the volume.

    As for younger galaxies in deeper space in all directions ... I gotta chew on that for a bit. Does that imply that all galaxy formations began around the same time .. everywhere? not close together as in a single point of origin? Gotta put some thought into this tidbit. Thx Dishwasher .. errr umm .. meister

    - mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    To the question: Is there anyone out there?

    Paul Davies, scientist and the author of The Eerie Silence says: As a scientist, my answer is that we are probably the only intelligent beings in the observable Universe, and I would not be very surprised if the solar system contains the only life in the observable Universe. But my decades of work as a professional scientist have not diluted that wide-eyed schoolboy fascination; I would very much like to believe that the Universe is intrinsically friendly to life and to intelligence. And that’s what makes SETI so tantalising. We just don’t know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Anti-BB exponents to note:

    The Large Hedron Collider (LHC), which was designed to accelerate protons to 7 trillion electron volts and then smash them together to reveal particles and forces that reigned during the first trillionth of a second of time, finally began to collide subatomic particles. That is the biggest news today.

    Particle colliders get their oomph from Einstein’s equation of mass and energy. The more energy — denoted in the physicists’ currency of choice, electron volts — that these machines can pack into their little fireballs, the further back in time they can go, closer and closer to the Big Bang, and the smaller and smaller things they can see.

    The collisions create tiny fireballs that mimic conditions that prevailed in the universe during the first fractions of a second after the big bang, some 13.7 bn years ago.

    rsridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    For the select few that have read through this thread know of my 'universal black hole' rants. Well, I was hoping to move on from that theory by having u guys debunk it with evidence I had not yet been exposed. Months later, I find myself spiraling deeper in to the abyssmal possibility and have stumbled onto some brow-raising coincidences.

    Now for a quick update ::: rather than visualizing a flat, planar universe (similar to galaxies), how about a toroidal universe with an epic BH @ its epicenter driving the whole system? Assuming our galaxy is located within this swirling accretion disk and still being spewn outward/away from the universal central point, one could account for ALL the evidence discovered to date.

    Also, has anyone ever played with Vortex-Based Mathematics?? It's based on a 9-number, single-digit system (Zero being omitted) and mathematically supports a toroidal universe. Before u flame me "Well ... in that case, we can invent ANY mathematical framework to support any theory!" I urge u to take a look at its structure: how the numbers interact, the patterns that occur, the correlations that're made; all merely coincidences?!

    - mudbug
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    ~OK. show us the math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Freshman Fairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FAIRY-LAND
    Posts
    6
    ER.. well thanks for the update
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    So does Vortex-Based Mathematics seem somewhat plausible to u guys?? Could it be THE mathematical blueprint to the nature of our universe?

    There are claims that it explains the non-decaying orbit of the electron; the formation / behavior of DNA, sound, color, electricity, magnetism; and mathematically depicts BH.

    The guy behind this 'discovery' is a nutbar (to say the least), but the number patterns are incredible. I can't help but think about the movie 'A Beautiful Mind' as I delve deeper into this maths (lrn2grammatical). Maybe the misses and kids are right ::: I'm losin' it!

    -mudbug
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hi,

    was this guy trying to sell something? Or, was he awaiting donations? What was he aiming at?

    I couldn't tell apart if this was real math or some randomly chosen series of digits.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    I'm reluctant to talk about Marko Rodin in this thread, but if he's right about this maths then it's relevant to the 'Evolution of the Universe.'

    He's some sorta mathematical savant who rediscovered ancient math, which was based on 9-digits and before the concept of 0 was realized. Roughly 15 years ago using the emergent, oscillating patterns of this "trinary" (triple binary) system, he developed a toroidal electrical coil that seems to focus it's magnetic field into a single point in it's center ::: a completely unique characteristic, and one that seems to mimic the conditions of a black hole. He even goes as far as claiming to be able to create singularities with this technology (hense 'nutbar').

    Since then, he's been on a personal mission to keep this technology out of corporate hands and its potential benefits freely available to the public; consequently stunting all major research support. He's not trying to sell anything, but does ask for donations to help fund his free seminars regarding 'Vortex-Based Mathematics.'

    This maths is releveant to the discussion because if this algorithm is correct, it can solve Pi, calculate infinity, explain the non-decaying orbit of the electron and the runaway gravitational effects of a BH.

    I just wanted to get some like-minded thinkers' opinions on the concept so lemme know what y'all think.
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Maybe you should ask for another opinion in the Math subforum. You may call me narrow minded, but already the list of things to be learned from this as shown on that website contains nonsensical, unscientific topics, some of which even contradict the very basics of established physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    You say nonsense, unscientific and contradictory ::: Others say common sense, fundamental and complementary to physics.

    But I agree that this may be better suited for the Math subforum. I'm not surprised but am disappointed that your interest isn't piqued or @ least slightly intrigued ::: to have a potential mathematical model for BHs ... well ... should be worthy of disproval.

    Please don't pass judgement for this maths based on a fanatic elder's website. There's more info out there, but it's fragmented and scattered.

    Have a gander @ 'the man' himself ::: www.markorodin.com :::

    -mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Some people need to learn the basics of BB - for them I would suggest the site
    http://space.about.com/od/astronomyh...ine_univer.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136 Sophistication 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    Sridharanr wrote:

    "When we talk of living creatures, we see that the universal evolution is at its best with millions of living forms evolved topping with human beings!"


    Well, at least according to one school such as phylogenics, one should not speak of evolution in terms of one animal toppling another animal ie. one animal would be more evolved and therefore superior than another in this case. One should instead speak of evolution in terms of adaptation, and if you wanted to consider which creatures are superior to which, you would have to measure the length of time they have taken to develop adaptations to their environments. In that respect, all the living creatures have taken the same time to evolve (have been evolving for the same amount of time), roughly 3.8-4 billion years, and hence are equally evolved. So there is no such concept of superiority speaking in evolutionary terms. You can speak of superiority concepts from the morphological point of view on the other hand, as you compare the degree of sophistication and complexity of tissues and organs of different species.

    Hunter
    whitesands2010@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    As far as we know, natural selection just means that the most fit survive and/or are more likely to procreate with the benefit of advanced technological supremacy. What I have endeavored to bring out is we are the only lot destined to become most advanced among all the living creatures known to us. Call it either phylogenetic or morphological point of view.

    sridharanr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    What I have endeavored to bring out is we are the only lot destined to become most advanced among all the living creatures known to us.
    Define advanced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    What I have endeavored to bring out is we are the only lot destined to become most advanced among all the living creatures known to us.
    Define advanced.
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    You are right that we underwent an increase in intelligence. In the same period of time ciclids in the rift valley lakes expanded to occupy a diversity of ecological niches. I am unclear as to why you do not consider this an advance. Or any of the myriad other evolutionary developments that led to successful histories for many plants, animals and bacteria. you seem to be taking a very anthropocentric view of the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    What I have endeavored to bring out is we are the only lot destined to become most advanced among all the living creatures known to us.
    Define advanced.
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    -sigh-

    The neanderthals had a larger brain. The humans had a certain look that apelled to spirits or capability to find them. Souls: Particles that seek or are found by bodies in which they grow until they collapse.

    A body without a spirit is not intelligent.

    (although that is just my belief and does not have to be true)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    LeavingQuietly, honestly, your responses are as nonsensical as a badly designed AI program. You don't make sense. YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    LeavingQuietly, honestly, your responses are as nonsensical as a badly designed AI program. You don't make sense. YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE.
    The universe's mechanisms doesn't have to make sence.

    Basically there are 2 current perspective, there is creationism, there is evolution, and mine is my own with a touch of both.

    In your own free minds perspective, how did the lesser brain of the human evolve so fast while other beings took junksteps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    You are right that we underwent an increase in intelligence. In the same period of time ciclids in the rift valley lakes expanded to occupy a diversity of ecological niches. I am unclear as to why you do not consider this an advance. Or any of the myriad other evolutionary developments that led to successful histories for many plants, animals and bacteria. you seem to be taking a very anthropocentric view of the world.
    Comprehension of the Universe is an intellectual domain exclusive only to humans rather than to other forms of life on earth, however advanced they may be. The fact is even the advanced level of intellect struggle to grasp the intricate nature of cosmos is proof enough to exclude other forms of life that are less evolved and can not even know that there exists a Universe!

    sridharanr
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    You are right that we underwent an increase in intelligence. In the same period of time ciclids in the rift valley lakes expanded to occupy a diversity of ecological niches. I am unclear as to why you do not consider this an advance. Or any of the myriad other evolutionary developments that led to successful histories for many plants, animals and bacteria. you seem to be taking a very anthropocentric view of the world.
    Comprehension of the Universe is an intellectual domain exclusive only to humans rather than to other forms of life on earth, however advanced they may be. The fact is even the advanced level of intellect struggle to grasp the intricate nature of cosmos is proof enough to exclude other forms of life that are less evolved and can not even know that there exists a Universe!

    sridharanr
    There you go again. you are applying strictly human centred values to a global issue. You are defining more evolved as being equivalent to more intelligent. That might be the sort of usage the uneducated masses use, but it is not appropriate in a science discussion. We are not more evolved than an E.coli, a grasshopper, or a rose bush. We have simply evolved more in one aspect of our character, just as they have evolved more in aspects of their character. Do you understand that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Humans began a rapid evolution in brain size and performance which resulted in a superior intelligence. There was an evolutionary change found in humans compared to other animals - this naturally led to our advancement. Am I right?

    sridharanr
    You are right that we underwent an increase in intelligence. In the same period of time ciclids in the rift valley lakes expanded to occupy a diversity of ecological niches. I am unclear as to why you do not consider this an advance. Or any of the myriad other evolutionary developments that led to successful histories for many plants, animals and bacteria. you seem to be taking a very anthropocentric view of the world.
    Comprehension of the Universe is an intellectual domain exclusive only to humans rather than to other forms of life on earth, however advanced they may be. The fact is even the advanced level of intellect struggle to grasp the intricate nature of cosmos is proof enough to exclude other forms of life that are less evolved and can not even know that there exists a Universe!

    sridharanr
    There you go again. you are applying strictly human centred values to a global issue. You are defining more evolved as being equivalent to more intelligent. That might be the sort of usage the uneducated masses use, but it is not appropriate in a science discussion. We are not more evolved than an E.coli, a grasshopper, or a rose bush. We have simply evolved more in one aspect of our character, just as they have evolved more in aspects of their character. Do you understand that?
    If you consider you are inferior to e-coli, grasshopper etc, I have nothing to argue with you. Our discussion is not evolution of grasshopper or e-coli. We are discussing evolution of the universe (big bang, galaxies, stars etc) as understood by human beings. I wish you come out with something worthwhile concerning physics and astronomy rather than making us understand bio centrism. I think your point of view is a diversion from the main topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    If you consider you are inferior to e-coli, grasshopper etc, I have nothing to argue with you.
    It is quite an achievment to be able to miss the point no matter how often it is explained to you. Your mother must be very proud.

    I am not inferior to an e-coli, or a grasshopper. I am different from them. They are superior to me in certain terms. I am superior to them in other terms. In biology and within the universe there are no absolutes of superiority and inferiority.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Our discussion is not evolution of grasshopper or e-coli. We are discussing evolution of the universe (big bang, galaxies, stars etc) as understood by human beings......... I think your point of view is a diversion from the main topic.
    You were the one who claimed humans were advanced. If that was a diversion it was one of your making.

    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    I wish you come out with something worthwhile concerning physics and astronomy rather than making us understand bio centrism.
    Your opening post contains the same flawed references to superior life forms and the same nonsense about evolutionary direction. I'll interject something worthwhile of an astronomical character when I no longer need to correct your anthropocentric bias.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    I think it is better to say the universe ages not evolves. Unless it's in deadly competition with parallel universes.

    I don't think the natural selection of mutating creatures living & dying in the surface scum layer of small rocks that orbit stars, has much effect on the universe.

    Saying that "one creature is more highly evolved than another" has no meaning.
    Species evolve to survive in an enviroment. With the most highly specialised being at the highest risk of extinction when the enviroment changes.

    The main mutation that let humans have bigger brains also gave us thinner skulls & weaker jaw muscles.
    So us humans are stuck being bald monkeys with bad eyesight, weak muscles, crap sense of smell & hearing but a big brain we use to destroy our own enviroment, with no escape plan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic
    no escape plan.
    Yet of all species on this planet ours is most likely to have inadvertantly brought about some kind of immortality beyond Earth. Maybe its in the crap ejected by a space shuttle's waste disposal. Maybe it's in commercial radio broadcasts. This would be survival of human "spirit" in the same sense pharaohs successfully caused their own spirits to survive... not exactly the way they imagined it would happen - but attain the afterlife they did, by impressing us gods with their works.

    I reckon our modern predictive wisdom no better than king Tut's. Maybe worse. :wink:
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    179
    Ophiolite is totally right in saying that we are no more advanced than any other creature on earth in a biological/scientific sense. As many animals have evolved far more sophisticated mechanisms than us, however saying that it is undenyable we are extremely intelligent as apes (well some of us are, excluding of course creationists!) :-D [/tex]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Clark Co., Nevada
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    ... We are discussing evolution of the universe (big bang, galaxies, stars etc) as understood by human beings...
    Are the evolutionary processes implied in in my signiture statement more in line with the OP topic?
    aguy2
    "We and the Universe around us are, apparently, involved in an ongoing process of Self-Engenderment, with Self-Engenderment being defined as, 'a process that gives rise to itself, without assistance'."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aguy2
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    ... We are discussing evolution of the universe (big bang, galaxies, stars etc) as understood by human beings...
    Are the evolutionary processes implied in in my signiture statement more in line with the OP topic?
    aguy2
    I intended to state that only humans have the ability to recognize that we have come a long way from the inception of BB and no other creature on this planet however highly evolved are equal to us in this special trait of knowing the Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Clark Co., Nevada
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by sridharanr
    Quote Originally Posted by aguy2
    Are the evolutionary processes implied in in my signiture statement more in line with the OP topic?
    I intended to state that only humans have the ability to recognize that we have come a long way from the inception of BB and no other creature on this planet however highly evolved are equal to us in this special trait of knowing the Universe.
    Don't you mean, "this special trait of trying to know the universe"?
    If so, well then - duh.

    What does this have to do with my signiture paradigm?
    aguy2
    "We and the Universe around us are, apparently, involved in an ongoing process of Self-Engenderment, with Self-Engenderment being defined as, 'a process that gives rise to itself, without assistance'."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154 Advanced what? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts
    Ophiolite is totally right in saying that we are no more advanced than any other creature on earth in a biological/scientific sense. As many animals have evolved far more sophisticated mechanisms than us, however saying that it is undenyable we are extremely intelligent as apes (well some of us are, excluding of course creationists!) :-D [/tex]
    If humans were not social it wouldn't matter how intelligent we are, we wouldn't be having this conversation. In any event whether humans will pass the test of time remains to be seen. It just might be that our so called intelligence is what's going to do us in as a species and what's worse some 100 million years from now, the age of humans could be known as the greatest extinction event planet Earth has ever experienced.

    To me being successfully advanced means we will find a way to colonize other planets in multiple other solar systems, because if we are stuck on this one planet or even this one solar system we are doomed as a species. However that last statement assumes humans on planet Earth are unique in all the universe. Are we really?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    No matter how much advanced we humans can reach, the final scenario is imminent as per many astrophysicists. Tens of billions of years from now, the Milky Way will be the only galaxy we're directly aware of (other nearby galaxies, including the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Andromeda galaxy, will have drifted into, and merged with, the Milky Way).

    By then the sun will have shrunk to a white dwarf, giving little light and even less heat to whatever is left of Earth, and entered a long, lingering death that could last 100 trillion years-or a thousand times longer than the cosmos has existed to date. The same will happen to most other stars, although a few will end their lives as blazing supernovas. Finally, though, all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black. On this scale life on earth is no more than an instantaneous moment, like a shooting star that was fading away across a dark sky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Some discussions started on Jan 1st have disappeared from this blog - may I request the moderator to look into please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    This isn't a blog.

    Your last post (before the one above) was on 12/31/2010: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...hlight=#271575

    I see no evidence that any were deleted. What was the content and thread they posted to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    sridharanr. A very pessimistic view. Electricity can be generated by magnetic fields and what do black holes have in plenty? Magnetic fields, so we will have unlimited energy.

    I suspect that there is a maximum size for black holes, which would be bigger than the 18 billion solar mass candidate that we know of. You keep shepherding them towards each other till at some point, the fundamental particles at the centre do give and become strings (or whatever the smallest possible component is) and I think you'll find gravity, so the event horizon will vanish. In an explosion which would make a hypernova look like a fire cracker going off, the building blocks of matter would be flung across the universe to make hydrogen and helium and new stars.
    starting from the above post and ending with

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Stop evasive manoeuvres! What is your evidence for a maximum mass of a Black Hole?
    We have no evidence that a normal black hole can break down fundamental particles. However if we take it that all particles are made of something very basic as in the legendary strings, then if we continue to add mass, so pile up the pressure on them, then at some point why should fundamental particles not collapse into strings? As such they are no longer matter and possibly even too small for gravity so the black hole ceases to exist.

    And stop talking about singularities. You are fighting shadows. For the last time: they are not important.
    Yet scientists still talk of them as though they actually do exist.
    Any freshman physics would be summarily flunked out of the program for statements of this magnitude of ignorance and stupidity.

    Not one single statement has any even a tenuous tie to real physics.

    You have got to be putting us on.
    all the posts including and between them could not be located in http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...0585&start=150

    and curiously all the above posts appear under

    Science Forum Forum Index » Pseudoscience » Cyberia's speculation on Black Holes at

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...hlight=#271575

    am I missing something? - request Administrator to see please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I now remember that I have split off these posts, because I considered them to be a diversion from the original topic. They are all part of a discussion on a speculation about the nature of Black Holes and as such do not contribute to the original topic of this thread.

    Greetings,
    Dishmaster (Moderator).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    48
    Thanks for the update - though I guessed so!

    rsridharan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •