Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Huge hole found in the universe

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

UM-Bot
Image credit: NASA/ESA/ESO
Image credit: NASA/ESA/ESO
The universe has a huge hole in it that dwarfs anything else of its kind. The discovery caught astronomers by surprise.The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos.

Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale.

news icon View: Full Article | Source: Space.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Primeval

The giant black monolith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghost Ship

Spooky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Krayt12

...whoa... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott_C

Yeah wow really interesting, thanks for posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sgt._Love

Sounds Big

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Like I've always said, scientists assume too much about the universe WAY too soon. We barely understand the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Like I've always said, scientists assume too much about the universe WAY too soon. We barely understand the universe.

agreed...how can a planet without space travel know so much?..it amazes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
III
Like I've always said, scientists assume too much about the universe WAY too soon. We barely understand the universe.

This was also how i felt after reading this article.... "scientists know something is there because they can measure bla bla"...

Nice find though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
louie

ok lets use some logic here. in all fairness we know nothing about the universe. even stars we know, we give them names, they are only our idea of something that not only exists outside our mindscape, it existed before our timeline.

basically we know nothing.

Edited by louie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torchwood

Religion/astrology and other random belief systems have been around thousands of years.

True science (as opposed to alchemy and people trying to do magic and finding things out by accident), has been around for a couple of hundred years.

Q:

How fast has has our civilization progressed in the past couple of centuries compared to the last couple of thousand years?

And which one found a massive hole (only the area was a new discovery, the phenomona was already basically known) and will now study it.

I hate it when people say "huh! shows scientists dont know everything after all!" as though scientists are supposed to be born with all the knowledge of the universe gushing forth from their mouths. Of course they dont know it all.

The word scientist does not mean "one who knows all".

It means "one who against all the odds is trying to find out!". At least he is trying!

Cool find tho, wonder how they occur? Suggestions?

Edited by Torchwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benjo Koolzooie

Yeah, I dislike how scientists assume too much about the universe. For example, when they state a planet is too cold/hot for anything to live on. There is a reason a lot of those planets and potential life forms in space are called "alien". They assume too much.

As for the actual article, very interestng. Wonder if there will be any sort of follow up story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torchwood

Assume? They dont just "assume" things randomly!

They use what evidence theyve got and try and work out an answer. Sometimes they get more information and go back and do the working out all over again to see if they got it wrong, and if they did they change it!

Well thats the idea anyway, nobodys perfect!:D

Edited by Torchwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyWeather
Yeah, I dislike how scientists assume too much about the universe. For example, when they state a planet is too cold/hot for anything to live on. There is a reason a lot of those planets and potential life forms in space are called "alien". They assume too much.

As for the actual article, very interestng. Wonder if there will be any sort of follow up story.

They don't just assume, planets too high in acidity or alkaline or basically far to hot, cannot support the building blocks of life. They'd just be eaten / destroyed by the conditions. However, from our own planet we have discovered how resiliant life is - from the boiling waters in yellow stone park and the frozon poles of the North, to the deep water pockets deep in the Earths crust.

From this - as well as experiments down on Earth, that resemble the findings of the planet-in-questions makeup, the scientist can conclude whether or not life can be present. Carbon is the most reliable atom for forming bonds, the next in line is silicon however it is not as successful as carbon. Silicon is still able to form bonds with other molecules, don't get me wrong. So we're looking for planets that have a higher percentage of life, that will have conditions suitable for carbon-based--life. Based on 100% fact that carbon life is abundant on Earth and that it's got over 100 million years of carbon-based-life, gives us the conclusion that carbon-based-life is more resiliant and resourceful. Seeing as it's all we know and that it is truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1213141516

I don't know why it caught them by surprise, it's space, and I doubt we have found all there is to find, if anything I would expect them to find it intriguing or interesting, not shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1213141516
Like I've always said, scientists assume too much about the universe WAY too soon. We barely understand the universe.

We barely understand it, but to start we must assume, or will go nowhere at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AncientLight

& it's headed this way .... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SafeNet_0432
Like I've always said, scientists assume too much about the universe WAY too soon. We barely understand the universe.
And what does that have to do with a void in space being found? It doesn't change anything.
I don't know why it caught them by surprise, it's space, and I doubt we have found all there is to find, if anything I would expect them to find it intriguing or interesting, not shocking.
Perhaps you are a little too close-minded to appreciate their findings? I don't know about you, but to me a void in space almost a billion light years across is very interesting and shocking to me. Edited by SafeNet_0432

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TeraLink

Hmm... Go right into it!

TeraLink Was Here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlantis Rises

"Holy nothing, Batman!"

"That's right, Robin, nothingness!"

"But how do you see something that isn't there?"

"Good question."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolvenblood

It'd be quite interesting to find out what is/how it occured when they research more on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronicHorse

Very interesting I wonder what would happen if you wne t inside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei

Scientist don't assume, they do NOT do such thing. Scientist follow the scientific method then come up with a conclusion, but they do no such thing as 'assume'.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

There is a popular misconception, sometimes even taught in science classes, that a scientific idea progresses from being a hypothesis, to being a theory, to being a law, based on how much evidence has been established. This is not the case. Although scientists in different fields may use the three terms somewhat differently (especially the term "hypothesis"), the terms represent different types of scientific understanding which are not subject to the alleged progression.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called "full disclosure", also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

[edit] Elements of scientific method

There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the scientific community and among philosophers of science, each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.

The accepted definition of the scientific method involves most of the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry, observation includes both unconditioned observations (prior to any theory) as well as the observation of the experiment and its results.

Description. Information derived from experiments must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable), as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. For cause-and-effect relationship to be established, the following must be established:

Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects. However, correlations between events or variables are not necessarily indicative of causation.

Elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them.: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

Another simplified model sometimes utilized to summarize scientific method is the "operational":

The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating models.[citation needed]

operation - Some action done to the system being investigated

Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system

Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment

Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam's Razor.

The following is a more thorough description of the method. This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as social sciences. Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.

The essential elements[3], [4], [5] of a scientific method[6] are iterations [7], recursions[8], interleavings, and orderings of the following:

Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[9] , and measurements)

Hypotheses[10] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[11]

Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[12] from hypothesis and theory)

Experiments[13] (tests of all of the above)

Source and more info on the scientific method Click.

The link has even more info on the scientific method, people, please do not comment without knowing thank you. And to the one word posters. Example:

Spooky.

...whoa... :blink:

Sounds Big

You all agreed with the rules when you became a member:

2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately make posts of little worth or that contain nonsense. This is usually done either for the purpose of increasing post count or to disrupt the forum by doing so in an attempt to bait others in to responding.

4b. One-word comments: Do not respond to threads or gallery pictures with derogatory one word responses such as "Fake!" or "Photoshop!". If you think something is fake then say why you think that, elaborate on your response.
Edited by Alex01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ba-ra-gentledragon

THE INFINITE POWER THAT CREATED THIS ENTIRE EVERYTHING IS, ACCESSABLE FROM WITHIN EVERY HUMAN BEING,BUT SOMEONE OR SOME THING/S DOES NOT WANT US TO KNOW!AND THATS WHY WERE ALL MAD,THEYVE ALWAYS MADE SURE WE DONT LOOK INSIDE OF OURSELVES FOR THE ANSWERS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Primeval
"Holy nothing, Batman!"

"That's right, Robin, nothingness!"

"But how do you see something that isn't there?"

"Good question."

Your looking at the absence of something.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.