I am really into astronomy and astrophysics, and I think if you haven't noticed, you know now.
I was on the nasa website reading about WMAP and other satellites and their findings. Of course I having a great basic understanding, thought it interesting to learn more.
We all know that it was commonly believed, and is now proven that the Big Bang happened because of the leftover radiation mapped by WMAP and it's sister satellites.
Now Nasa has further unanswered questions that actually seem to contradict how things should be after the big bang's accepted model. The most well known paradox is the distribution of matter, the formation of galaxies and their distribution and the less known paradoxes like the uniformness of tempature in the universe, the dissappearance of most of the matter in the universe(the number is big, only 4% being visible matter, which means you can't see 96% of the local visible universe even though you are staring at it).
The paradoxes can't be explained because there is no way around them, the information doesnt just contradict the theory it proves right, ironically it also contradicts the other data gathered.
For example: the radiation proved that the big bang happened, along with other data, simply because you don't get so much radiation like that without some explosion bigger than one can see and tell the tale. Or even contemplate, it was an expansion that happened so fast that it is beyond the human imagination.
Well the information says that the universe expanded into being faster than the speed of light, and not to forget that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and we arent going that fast now(are we?but by some unknown law of physics being protected in some kind of bubble of mysterious matter?) and it is expanding yet faster. Yet since the universe hasnt and isnt, and doesnt appear to have any sign that it will slow down, how is it possible that we have been expanding that fast? Yet we have and we are!
Yes, these are facts, all about our strange universe, I dont understand the speed part too much. Yet the part I understand the best is the part I can actually grip in my head to contemplate at some level.
The rate the universe has expanded and it's age, are actually contradicting the fact of how uniform tempature is and the distribution of matter. In other words, in 12-14 billion years, the tempature in the universe has cooled alot, yet doesnt vary from one end of it to another, even though it is so huge!
Also we hear of the Age problem of stars. Some stars are older than the estimation of the age of the universe.
One can also get into the whole idea of if the big bang created the universe, what created the big bang paradox. And how so much matter can be held in such a small spot even for a moment, and what made it expand like there is no tomorrow(o wait, it created tomorrow too!).
We know the big bang happened, because the evidence says it is more than obvious. Now some scientists aren't ready to find the cause, simply because we need to understand the data first, because whatever caused the big bang lost its bearings. literally.
Yet I was reading something on the formation of stars. It is known that black holes are really dense neutron stars spinning so fast, they literally cause everything around them to spin so fast stars don't age because they are constantly colliding with other stars.
And they distort all time, space and evidently reality around them, and they may cause a short lived wormhole (as Einstein suggested) yet the gravity would destroy it faster than imaginable. Maybe they store so much evergy that when everything else is gone, they eventually travel so fast they pop like everything else, since there is a point in which its gravity can no longer fight the law of physics that nothing goes faster than light(but the speed of light itself is alterable, so keep in mind, speed of light in a vacuum).
Perhaps when Black holes pop, they re-create the big bang in a very exaggerated form of a supernova. And if fat enough off of stars, a whole universe? It would explain some otherwise almost contradictory parts.
Another paradox being the energy of the void, which points to a infinite universe with no edge, but if there was a beginning to the universe, how can it be infinite?
Can it be both finite and infinite?
Life, love, liberty, freedom, justice and equality for all......
.........for all regardless of any other reason.
Posts: 231 | Location: new york state, united states | Registered: December 15, 2007
wow. where's shadow dragon when you need him? he really digs this sh*t and always has some very interesting, educated and intelligent replies to these kind of posts. COME HOME SHADOW!!! I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT!!
Nothing in Astronomy makes much since to me (it's the first physic class I've ever had). Anyways my tutor says they just pick the theory that explain most things.
Posts: 2650 | Location: A dark void | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by MidnightStar: Nothing in Astronomy makes much since to me (it's the first physic class I've ever had). Anyways my tutor says they just pick the theory that explain most things.
BUt then they like have to make theories to explain theories. As a pagan, its obvious I'm not creationist, but I really dont get it much either. Can anyone help explain this theory? OR why its still called scientific fact, or why it was ever called that?
Like with the contradictions I mentioned above, how can the data be valid?
Posts: 231 | Location: new york state, united states | Registered: December 15, 2007
I don't think they treat the Big Bang theory as a fact. It's just the most popular theory for which more factual data was gathered than for any other, and it keeps to evolve and patched as new data becomes available. There is another theory by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok that suggests that the Universe is going back and forth between expansion and contraction, never having a singular point at which it started. An infinite and timeless Universe that was, is, and always will be there, with all possible changes happening within it. There are probably other theories.
The problem with explaining creation is that it touches on philosophical matters, it isn't about scientific facts only. Can you imagine something with infinite density and temperature? Can you imagine time and space not existing at all, nothing that we could call a physical world with all its laws as we know them? If it has density and temperature but isn't a physical matter, what is it?How THAT came into existence? Can it be even called "existence"? If that infinitely dense and hot stuff was a physical matter, then the Big Bang didn't start the physical world, did it? What exactly happens when the physical world is being created? What happens to physical laws in the process of creation, never mind how little time it took? See, none of these questions are strictly scientific, but all of them have philosophical aspect.
The only thing that is touted as a fact in the Big Bang theory is that the Universe had a beginning. What if it didn't? What if the alternative theory proposed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok is more adequate but at the same time more difficult to accept for a Western mind accustomed to linear thinking where everything has the origin and the end? The Big Bang model is difficult enough because it's not talking about simple 3-dimensional expansion or initial explosion which both would be relatively easy to comprehend. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's theory is much younger too, being first published in 2002.
Where, or where is Shadow Dragon when we need him??!
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
Some might wonder if instead of a big bang, there maybe some connection of black holes and the big bang, that when all else is swallowed up or becomes energy by going too fast, that maybe a black hole blows itself up like every other high energy things in the universe. I must admit, my love for science hits hard into uncharted hard to comprehend regions of the known universe.
The idea of a universe that goes through phases of big bang, then falling back on its gravity, then causing the process over, almost sounds HIndu. For hindus believe (as well as ancient egyptians and many others) that the universe began with a cosmic egg from which everything came from. ANd the process repeats itself obver and over.
Life, love, liberty, freedom, justice and equality for all......
.........for all regardless of any other reason.
Posts: 231 | Location: new york state, united states | Registered: December 15, 2007
I need to check this forum more often. Horus while your attempt to understand the big bang is admirable, I do think you need to educate yourself a little more on the matter.
First of all, the big bang was not an explosion, not a boom not a bang. It was a rapid expansion of space and time of an extremely dense and massive singularity. The exact trigger for this expansion is unknown. All we know is that it happened. The big bang model actually predicts an uneven distribution of matter, it's not a problem for it. It's called gravity. As the universe expanded the 4 fundamental forces of the universe managed to overcome the kinetic energy of matter as it cooled down. Allowing matter to clump together, and eventually form the first proto-stars. The cosmic microwave background radiation we detect is an imprint, a fingerprint if you will of this early universe. It's actually light that redshifted as the universe expanded. And yes it did expand faster than the speed of light for a while. But it's a little tricky I've been told so I don't really know the details on that. I do know that if one takes, say, a laser and you point it from earth at an incredibly large object lightyears away and you then proceed to quickly move the laser back and forth. The movement of the laser dot on your distant surface can easily surpass the speed of light. Also the speed of light is actually lower in a medium, like water.
As far as I know the universe currently is not expanding at a rate anywhere near the speed of light. The thing is, previously it was believed the expansion should be slowing down, but it's accelerating. It seems something is making the universe expand. Gravity which tends to pull matter together, is losing the 'battle' to some unknown foe. Scientists have postulated this to be 'dark energy.' Now dark energy is a hypothesis at best it has so far not been detected. But scientists do believe it's effects have been indirectly observed by watching the behavior of visible objects such as stars. Black holes are detected in the same manner.
quote:
Also we hear of the Age problem of stars. Some stars are older than the estimation of the age of the universe.
That's the first time I've heard of this tbh. Do note that when looking into space you're looking back in time. When you look at a star millions of lightyears away, you're looking at light that's millions of years old. The star itself may be gone already.
quote:
One can also get into the whole idea of if the big bang created the universe, what created the big bang paradox. And how so much matter can be held in such a small spot even for a moment, and what made it expand like there is no tomorrow(o wait, it created tomorrow too!).
The exact catalyst is unknown. Though you should do some research on the multi-verse hypothesis. And gravity can do strange things to matter.
quote:
Yet I was reading something on the formation of stars. It is known that black holes are really dense neutron stars spinning so fast, they literally cause everything around them to spin so fast stars don't age because they are constantly colliding with other stars.
Whether or not a star becomes a black hole or a neutron star at the end of it's life depends on it's original mass. Only truly massive stars collapse into black holes at the end of their lifespan. Black holes don't cause nearby object to spin themselves. But Stars can become trapped in it's gravitational field causing them to orbit the black hole at massive speeds. Stars near the galactic core can be seen orbiting the massive black hole in the core at speeds up to 3% of the speed of light. This can induce collisions where stars can fuse together, extending their lifespan but not making them immortal. A star needs fuel to burn, extra fuel means it burns longer.
quote:
And they distort all time, space and evidently reality around them, and they may cause a short lived wormhole (as Einstein suggested) yet the gravity would destroy it faster than imaginable. Maybe they store so much evergy that when everything else is gone, they eventually travel so fast they pop like everything else, since there is a point in which its gravity can no longer fight the law of physics that nothing goes faster than light(but the speed of light itself is alterable, so keep in mind, speed of light in a vacuum).
Perhaps when Black holes pop, they re-create the big bang in a very exaggerated form of a supernova. And if fat enough off of stars, a whole universe? It would explain some otherwise almost contradictory parts.
Another paradox being the energy of the void, which points to a infinite universe with no edge, but if there was a beginning to the universe, how can it be infinite?
Can it be both finite and infinite?
Black holes do weird things to the space around them, but forming wormholes and altering reality is something they so far don't seem to do. They do mess with time however as time will progress slower as one gets closer to the black hole. Einstein's theory of relativity becomes...unreliable when it comes to conditions of such high gravity or near the speed of light. It's one of the reasons why scientists are still looking for a theory that's better than relativity, a theory which will unify relativity with quantum physics.
As for the universe, matter is finite, but the space into which matter can expand so far seems to be infinite.
Just keep educating yourself on the matter I suggest you read some of Stephen Hawking's books. He writes for us lay people
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ShadowDragon,
----------------------------------- Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World]
Originally posted by MidnightStar: Nothing in Astronomy makes much since to me (it's the first physic class I've ever had). Anyways my tutor says they just pick the theory that explain most things.
BUt then they like have to make theories to explain theories. As a pagan, its obvious I'm not creationist, but I really dont get it much either. Can anyone help explain this theory? OR why its still called scientific fact, or why it was ever called that?
Like with the contradictions I mentioned above, how can the data be valid?
In day to day use, theory means guess or conjecture. In science the word theory has a different meaning. A theory is a set of explanations which have been repeatedly tested and widely accepted by the scientific community. A theory is the highest rank an idea can ever achieve in science. One of the golden rules of science however is that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Theories only approach certainty, with a very high degree I might add. One should not confuse facts, laws and theories. Facts and laws are PART of a theory. And theories are valid as long as they hold up to repeated testing and if they are falsifiable. A theory which makes predictions which do not match the observations is cast aside and scrapped, like cold fusion. Gravity is a theory, electricity is a theory, evolution is a theory, and so too, is the big bang a theory.
----------------------------------- Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World]
Shadow, you finally came! So good to have your input! How have you been?
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
quote:
Also we hear of the Age problem of stars. Some stars are older than the estimation of the age of the universe.
That's the first time I've heard of this tbh. Do note that when looking into space you're looking back in time. When you look at a star millions of lightyears away, you're looking at light that's millions of years old. The star itself may be gone already.
help keep music alive by keepin in our schools 
