Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
LordBishop

Something to ponder about the universe

35 posts in this topic

My apologies if this has been discussed or posted before. This thought has crossed my mind since I started watching The Universe program on The History Channel.

My thought regarding the "universe"

If the night sky visible on Earth contains billions of stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy -

linked-image

And the Milky Way is a member of the Local Group of Galaxies -

linked-image

And if we expand past the local group, there are billions upon billions of other galaxies -

linked-image

I am thinking... the thing we call "the universe" is probably one big galaxy, too, comprised of trillions of smaller galaxies, which includes the Milky Way.

Now imagine if our "universe" is just one big galaxy, and it's also one of billions of galaxy-like universes... Wow.

Edited by LordBishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive thought about the exact same thing,

good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes my brain hurt when I try to comprehend the size and vastness of Space and all that’s contained within :wacko:

TBH it gives me a little bit of any un-easy feeling as I realise how insignificant I/we are in the grand scheme of things.

Subjects similar to this have been discussed on UM before concerning the similarities between Galaxies and Universes, I remember a scientist recently made an assumption that a very possible reason that Galaxies and Universes have similarities may be because they might be generated in similar ways, he suggested that the pattern was due to the gravitational pull of a Black hole but because we cannot see black holes this might be awkward to prove.

The scientists went on to suggest that in fact there might be an un-known or un-realised law that underpins this design consistency, it was suggested that there are similarities from a Galaxy all the way down to the way a proton/Electron circles around an atoms nucleus, the way he showed it was how a small sprig of a fern looks like a miniature sized but perfectly formed fern so when we see our galaxy/universe we are just looking at a small sprig/clipping and not the entire "plant".

The scientist dude explained the mathematical formula/principles behind this observation what had been known for quite some time, the Formula used fractals and the fern shown below is a fractal fern, it is referred to as a "Spleenwort Fern".

linked-image

I will look for the relevant links and post when found, alternatively you might see them for yourself while surfing , cheers for the post it definitely makes you think :tu:

Edited by zimbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My apologies if this has been discussed or posted before. This thought has crossed my mind since I started watching The Universe program on The History Channel.

My thought regarding the "universe"

If the night sky visible on Earth contains billions of stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy -

linked-image

And the Milky Way is a member of the Local Group of Galaxies -

linked-image

And if we expand past the local group, there are billions upon billions of other galaxies -

linked-image

I am thinking... the thing we call "the universe" is probably one big galaxy, too, comprised of trillions of smaller galaxies, which includes the Milky Way.

Now imagine if our "universe" is just one big galaxy, and it's also one of billions of galaxy-like universes... Wow.

Not an irrational idea whatsoever.

Could be.

And, inversely, we could postulate that the structure of the entire universe in infinitely galactic.

Perhaps we humans are but a tiny microcosm of a much vaster universe, and when we look in a microcope (I realize lots of people today have never done so), we might be looking at a universe in itself, and the atom...perhaps that's a universe, within a universe, within a universe....

Maybe we are a microscopic vision to beings who consider our solar system microscopic???

It' a great exercise in stretching the intellect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one big mind-boggling exercise, LordBishop :lol:

Great pictures by the way :tu:

It does make you wonder what delights are out there though, I mean trillions upon trillions of lightyears away, it is hard to even get an inkling about it all :blink:

Perhaps each star is just an atom of something bigger and so on and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am thinking... the thing we call "the universe" is probably one big galaxy, too, comprised of trillions of smaller galaxies, which includes the Milky Way.

Now imagine if our "universe" is just one big galaxy, and it's also one of billions of galaxy-like universes... Wow.

Actually this is not feasible since the big band has been proven.

Every galaxy we can observe is moving away from a single point of origin, i was by tracking this movement that we figured out that the universe did indeed have a starting point as everything is moving out into oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually this is not feasible since the big band has been proven.

Every galaxy we can observe is moving away from a single point of origin, i was by tracking this movement that we figured out that the universe did indeed have a starting point as everything is moving out into oblivion.

I honestly don't believe it's been "proven". I believe it's still theorized what may have happened. Same as black holes. Yes, they can speculate that at the center of galaxies lie a "black hole" as they have evidence of stars moving around a singular object of dense gravity and images of mass amount of energy being spewed out of either end - but since they have not yet "seen" the so-called black hole, then one can't say for 100% certain that it is what it seems to be (a black hole). A hole, IMO, is empty space. These so-called black holes may be something entirely different when they are actually viewed or seen, like an anti-star, something totally opposite of a star. All the data I've seen, all the tv shows I've seen, look fantastic, however, just 500-600 years ago, some of the smartest minds on this planet knew the world was flat. Not only that, most believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. Nicolaus Copernicus and probably a handful of others opposed this idea.

I know technology is literally light-years ahead of what they had back then, but still, the current evidence we have about a so-called Big Bang is still speculation. Even with the advancements we have in telescopes (Earth based and space based), we still do not have any "clear" images of Uranus, Neptune and especially Pluto, which almost leads me to doubt the authenticity of Hubble's Deep Field (and Ultra Deep Field) images. Sure, we have some pictures of Uranus and Neptune from Voyager, but look how close we had to get to take those images. Basically, with all the advancement of our modern instruments, we are still human. Humans may have discovered a lot of stuff in the last 500 years, but to claim how the "Universe" was created blows my mind, especially when they can't even agree upon the age (13.5 billion? Maybe. 100 trillion years old? Who knows, we can only speculate from the Redshift, but what lies beyond that?). Edit - Let me correct myself, the reason we don't have better pictures of Neptune and Uranus (someone correct me if I'm wrong), is that they are not directly emitting light like a star but reflecting light from the Sun, and the fact that they are so far away makes it hard to have a clear image from our point of view.

I would think if such a big bang existed, who is to say that that event was about the same (but on a larger scale) as when a star goes super nova? For example, if the "known universe" was like most of the people that responded (as well as me) have pondered, then our know universe (if it was like a large galaxy within another galaxy, etc.) would be like a star going nova in our Milky Way (or other close by galaxy).

Edited by LordBishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected, the current view of Uranus is spectacular:

linked-image

Edited by LordBishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many possibilities and i certainly couldn,t begin to guess at it all, but it is very interesting and those pics are great! :yes::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one big mind-boggling exercise, LordBishop :lol:

Great pictures by the way :tu:

It does make you wonder what delights are out there though, I mean trillions upon trillions of lightyears away, it is hard to even get an inkling about it all :blink:

Perhaps each star is just an atom of something bigger and so on and so on.

Yeah, wouldn't it be a trip? The old saying (forgot how it goes :lol: ) but something about being a small part of a larger picture would hold true and we weren't but microbes in the "creators" bloodstream or something.

That TV show I was watching, one scientist said that our Milky Way galaxy is so large that if our sun was a period or the dot of an i on a book - in comparison, the Milky Way would be as large as the United States. In our galaxy alone, it is speculated that there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. Just imagine if only 1/10th of 1% of those stars had life? That would be a hell of a lot of planets (I'm not good at math, perhaps someone can do the calculation?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually this is not feasible since the big band has been proven.

Every galaxy we can observe is moving away from a single point of origin, i was by tracking this movement that we figured out that the universe did indeed have a starting point as everything is moving out into oblivion.

And the big bang has been proven? Oh my this is new. :rolleyes:

If everything is moving away from each other, if in every point of the universe you see a galaxy moving away from you then the universe does not have a starting point aka a center, I think you have misunderstood the thoery of the Big Bang.

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by Alex01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the big bang has been proven? Oh my this is new. :rolleyes:

If everything is moving away from each other, if in every point of the universe you see a galaxy moving away from you then the universe does not have a starting point aka a center, I think you have misunderstood the thoery of the Big Bang.

EDIT: Spelling.

I suggest that AtheistGod watch The Universe series - particularly the Alien Galaxy episode.

This is still coming on The History Channel on Tuesday nights - or you can buy the DVD set:

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=77605

I think I might pick this up since it's less than $34. I had the series saved on my DVR but deleted them recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think if such a big bang existed, who is to say that that event was about the same (but on a larger scale) as when a star goes super nova? For example, if the "known universe" was like most of the people that responded (as well as me) have pondered, then our know universe (if it was like a large galaxy within another galaxy, etc.) would be like a star going nova in our Milky Way (or other close by galaxy).

You can't compare the big bang to an actual explosion. The big bang was the expansion of space its self, it's strange to think about.

I don't have much doubt that an event like the big bang did occur, nor do many people who study in the field, but that shouldn't mean we can't imagine there being something more to the universe. For all we know the confines of our own "universe" could just be a microscopic bubble, part of inconcievably large universe.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible" -Einstein

Here's an image known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Click for full size image):

linked-image

Imagine looking at the night sky through the eye of a needle held up at an arms length, that's roughly equivalent to the area that this image is showing.

<-- Here's a great video which discusses the image, it helps you to understand the extraordinary scale of what you're looking at.

Every galaxy we can observe is moving away from a single point of origin, i was by tracking this movement that we figured out that the universe did indeed have a starting point as everything is moving out into oblivion.

Actually what the movement shows is that everything is moving away from everything. Space its self is expanding, which means the further away something is from us, the faster it will move away from us, because the amount of space between us and that area is greater, so the rate of expansion adds up.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the big bang has been proven? Oh my this is new. :rolleyes:

If everything is moving away from each other, if in every point of the universe you see a galaxy moving away from you then the universe does not have a starting point aka a center, I think you have misunderstood the thoery of the Big Bang.

EDIT: Spelling.

The big bang not only works mathematically but also works to explain the movement observed. Everything is moving outward and away from one another, again if you track this movement over ex-amount of years you can calculate how long things have been moving outward and calculate where they were.

While you may not believe or want to believe that simple observation and mathematical calculations can work to prove something it is fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big bang not only works mathematically but also works to explain the movement observed. Everything is moving outward and away from one another, again if you track this movement over ex-amount of years you can calculate how long things have been moving outward and calculate where they were.

While you may not believe or want to believe that simple observation and mathematical calculations can work to prove something it is fact.

AG...... sigh* The Big Bang IS A THEORY. That mean that it is yet to be proven true. Please be so kind to read this, bolded parts most important:

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

I suggest you that you inform yourself a bit more about the Big Bang before actually discussing about it, you cleary demostrate that you are much not informed. :)

This link has some really good explanations on the Big Bang Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Source

Edited by Alex01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*cough*

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

Source

I suggest you learn the definitions of the terms you're using before you incorrectly use them to try and refute someone elses argument. :tu:

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*cough*

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory.

I suggest you learn the definitions of the terms you're using before you incorrectly use them to try and refute someone elses argument. :tu:

I know it's a scientific theory you don't have to show it to me especially in red. So rude. :angry: That was not where I was pointing my thread anyways now was it? And I don't have to munch up all the information for him he is human and is capable of thinking for himself. Next time read deep into peoples thread and find their objective before critisizing hem. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I just copied and pasted your post, and changed the relevant parts so that my post made sense. The only actual difference I made was to highlight instead of using bold (personal preference, it actually makes it easier for people to read), so if you found anything in my post to be rude, you must have posted something rude first.

You said that the Big Bang theory is just a "theory", then you put the wrong definition in bold. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. If you already knew the difference, then you must have intentionally tried to mislead AtheistGod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I just copied and pasted your post, and changed the relevant parts so that my post made sense. The only actual difference I made was to highlight instead of using bold (personal preference, it actually makes it easier for people to read), so if you found anything in my post to be rude, you must have posted something rude first.

You said that the Big Bang theory is just a "theory", then you put the wrong definition in bold. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. If you already knew the difference, then you must have intentionally tried to mislead AtheistGod.

OK first of all, I did not post anything rude, and if I did, I ask AG to accpet my apologies.

Second, when I said it was just a theory, in the word theory, I included all kinds of theories that comonly exist, and the POINT, the OBJECTIVE (wich I still recommend you to try recognizing them) was to inform AG of what a theory is.

Third, there is no wrong definition in the text I quoted, the whole two paragraphs came from wikipedia, I see you didn't even bother to visit the source link before critisizing my post. I believe wikipedia to be a reliable source of information so the whole two paragrahs ARE CORRECT.

Last but not least, I WILL NEVER DARE to mislead someone in temrs of information, I AM NOT THAT KIND OF PERSON, if thats the kind of person that you deal with everyday, then IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. You pointed out the diference between the scientific theory and a standard theory in a VERY RUDE way, you could have atleast expected what my reaction would be, unless you don't interect with humans very often. :angry:

Edited by Alex01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard of an alternative to the Big Bang theory, it revolves around the Super String theory, from what I understand (very limited as string theory is tricky) the Big Bang was generated when the membrane that our universe/dimension is "glued" to collided with another membrane.

linked-image

And hey Presto.... life :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Third, there is no wrong definition in the text I quoted, the whole two paragraphs came from wikipedia, I see you didn't even bother to visit the source link before critisizing my post. I believe wikipedia to be a reliable source of information so the whole two paragrahs ARE CORRECT.

You said that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, then in your definition you put in bold all of the parts referring to theory rather than scientific theory; I'd say that's pretty misleading.

Second, when I said it was just a theory, in the word theory, I included all kinds of theories that comonly exist, and the POINT, the OBJECTIVE (wich I still recommend you to try recognizing them) was to inform AG of what a theory is.

I was just pointing out that there's a difference between the two, the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory, not a theory. :tu:

That's my point and objective; you're informing him with the wrong word.

OK first of all, I did not post anything rude, and if I did, I ask AG to accpet my apologies.

You see the post I made which got you all angry? Look at that, now look at the one above it. I copied and pasted your post, then edited the relevant parts to make it my own. I didn't add anything else to it apart from highlighting your own quote. If you thought it was rude then I'm sorry, but I scarcely said anything you didn't say first.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a theory and a scientific theory again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote Alex used:

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

The first paragraph defines what a theory is, the second paragraph defines what a scientific theory is.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is what I found, please excuse the source (Wiki) but I'm on company time, so that is a factor and I needed a fast answer:

Science

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

IMO, no matter how you word it, it's someone's best guess - educated or not. I still believe an open mind should be used and accept other "theories" and not be so closed in regards to a Big Bang or not. I mean, wow, now someone is saying don't compare the Big Bang to an explosion? :lol:

You can't compare the big bang to an actual explosion. The big bang was the expansion of space its self, it's strange to think about.

Ya know, most scientists would agree that it was an explosion - it's called the Big Bang for a reason.

Edited by LordBishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this is what I found, please excuse the source (Wiki) but I'm on company time, so that is a factor and I needed a fast answer:

IMO, no matter how you word it, it's someone's best guess - educated or not. I still believe an open mind should be used and accept other "theories" and not be so closed in regards to a Big Bang or not.

Don't worry, Wikipedia is as good a source as any other. :tu:

I never said not to be "open minded", the key property of scientific theories is that they're susceptible to falsification should any contradictory evidence arise.

I mean, wow, now someone is saying don't compare the Big Bang to an explosion? :lol:

In all of my reading on the subject, I've never come across someone describing it as a literal explosion. An "explosion" of space, sure. But not an explosion of matter as you or I would know it.

I would let it go, but you laughed at me. <_<:P So here are a few quotes from sources to explain what I mean.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

Source

The initial expansion of this primeval fireball is almost universally described as a huge explosion. An explosion however is not the best analogy to describe this expansion. Why? In an explosion, such as a bomb or firecracker, matter blasts out from a central location and fills up space that is already there. This is not what happened in the big bang.

Expansion but not Explosion

Source

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.