14 replies to this topic

[JonesGuy]

It looks like he's off on a couple things:
- the velocities of galaxies that we observe are the velocities they were undergoing many billions of years ago. This is why we think the visible universe is ~45 gly (billion light year) big even though we're seeing light from 13 bly away.

- dark matter has shown to be a viable predictor in things such as gravitational lensing. In other words, we're seeing evidence for it right where we thought we would.

[Cyberbrain]

It might be possible, but since the universe is composed of 70% dark energy and 25% dark mater ... who knows?

[Live Forever]

I wish I knew enough about astrophysics to know if he was right or wrong...

[barak]

I honestly don't really agree with him or the big bang theory. Regular people and scientists have been raised their whole life to know certain laws. Like everything "has to have" a beginning. But the universe is a power unlike any of us can ever imagine who is to say that a beginning is actually real, we thought up the word beginning and its meaning so the actual idea of it is from an inferior race on a chunk of rock in the middle of literally nowhere. Same goes for our lovely guidelines known as the laws of physics. Haha just my two cents.

[Cyberbrain]

To be honest I think that the string theory does the big bang some justice. It doesn't make sense to say that there was nothing before the big bang. String theory tells us that the universe is a result of the collision of the membranes of two other universes. And that there are infinite number of universes existing for an infinite period of time.

Though this doesn't exactly answer the question of where everything came from.

[luv2increase]

String theory tells us that the universe is a result of the collision of the membranes of two other universes. And that there are infinite number of universes existing for an infinite period of time. 

Wow, an infinite number of universes. Now, that really explains everything. Seems like a scape goat though. This is not testable, too bad. If one were to believe in this rubbish, they would be guilty of believing in the supernatural. Matter does not come out of nothing. What created that first piece of matter? What process? Where did that process get its raw materials from and what were they?

[Live Forever]

String theory tells us that the universe is a result of the collision of the membranes of two other universes. And that there are infinite number of universes existing for an infinite period of time. 

Wow, an infinite number of universes. Now, that really explains everything. Seems like a scape goat though. This is not testable, too bad. If one were to believe in this rubbish, they would be guilty of believing in the supernatural. Matter does not come out of nothing. What created that first piece of matter? What process? Where did that process get its raw materials from and what were they?

Exactly. These are the questions we strive to answer. The difference between science and supernatural, of course, is that one tries to use the evidence to form a hypothesis on what happened. (instead of using no evidence and only faith to form a hypothesis) The problem that creates so much disagreement in science on issues such as the Big Bang and the beginning (if there was one) to the universe is that the evidence is so small at this point. Hopefully one day we will be able to hammer it out. [thumb]

[Athanasios]

- dark matter has shown to be a viable predictor in things such as gravitational lensing.  In other words, we're seeing evidence for it right where we thought we would.

Yeah, looks like he needs to update his site. Here is a quote from the site:

The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results.

Here is a recent hubble discovery:
http://hubblesite.or...s/2007/17/full/

discussed here...kinda:
http://www.imminst.o...=dark matter&s=

from release:

"This is the first time we have detected dark matter as having a unique structure that is different from both the gas and the galaxies in the cluster," said astronomer M. James Jee of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

and a separate incidence from Chandra and other telescopes besides hubble:
http://chandra.harva...ess_082106.html

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.
"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

Edited by cnorwood, 27 June 2007 - 08:22 PM.

[quadclops]

luv2increase

Matter does not come out of nothing. What created that first piece of matter? What process? Where did that process get its raw materials from and what were they?

As I understand it, at least I think I understand it ( [lol] ), the aforementioned "brane" collisions imparted sufficient energy to create these universes. I think the space-time, the matter and the energy of the new universe arose from the waste energy of the brane collision.

[Athanasios]

Oh and about dark matter, I have a problem with that picture.

1) They said dark matter is invisible.
2) They said they looked alot
3) The one who found it said she didn't belive and no matter what she did, changing rays or whatever, it stayed there.

ummm......

I don't understand the implication but here is some text from the image caption that might help:

The ring-like structure is evident in the blue map of the cluster's dark matter distribution. The map is superimposed on a Hubble image of the cluster. The ring is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to date for the existence of dark matter, an unknown substance that pervades the universe.

The map was derived from Hubble observations of how the gravity of the cluster Cl 0024+17 distorts the light of more distant galaxies, an optical illusion called gravitational lensing. Although astronomers cannot see dark matter, they can infer its existence by mapping the distorted shapes of the background galaxies. The mapping also shows how dark matter is distributed in the cluster.

[PWAIN]

I subscribe to my own theory.

My theory is "The Big Shrink". Basically, space is NOT expanding, simply the matter in it is all shrinking. As everything shrinks, so do our methods of measurement so space appears to be expanding.

Here is a thought experiment to help with understanding what I am trying to say:

Imagine 2 circles both with a diameter of 10cm and with their centre points exactly 20cm from each other. So the space between them (circumfrence to circumfrence) is 10cm.

Now if the circles were to maintain their center point location but shrink in size to have a 5cm diameter, the distance between them (circumfrence to circumfrence) is 15cm. Since we have halved our diameter, everything else should have halved, so our ruler should now be half it's original size. This means with our newly sized ruler, our distance between the circles will now appear to be 30cm and not 15cm. (Note for an unaffected outside observer, the distance would remain at 15cm but since we are not and cannot be outside observers anymore than we can be outside observers of time it is irrelevent)

The further apart the 2 circles, the greater the change appears. eg. if the whole thing is scaled up 10x, the distance between the 2 objects (circumfrence to circumfrence) would go from 100cm to 300cm ie. 200cm apparent movement as opposed to 20cm apparent movement. This accounts for everything appearing to move away from us at increasing speeds according to their distance.

This theory of mine would have to be universal and apply to all matter. It makes more sense to me that the universe started as a single balll of energy and that energy has receded or shrunk. Conservation of energy is preserved within the system but not from an exterior perspective.

Resvhead