Luvkittys7 Posted August 25, 2007 #26 Share Posted August 25, 2007 This is a very interesting find. I'm waiting for the Christians to say that this may be where God lives, or where Heaven is. I'm somewhat agnostic, tending a bit more towards believing in God, so this theory was the first that popped into my head. As for the scientists: They know SOME things. The things they presume to know will continually change as new discoveries are made. This leads one to wonder if the scientists really know so much, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picturesque Orion Posted August 25, 2007 #27 Share Posted August 25, 2007 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 That doesn0t make any sense to me really. Btw..... read the rules please: 4a. Shouting: Do not write in all uppercase letters, writing in this manner is considered "shouting" and makes posts difficult to read as well as looking unsightly and being annoying to other visitors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted August 25, 2007 #28 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'm probaby being simplistic here... but... what the heck. If the universe was created in a 'big bang', expanding from a singularity in a (metaphorical) explosion of energy and matter, then this would surely suggest that all matter (and energy) in the universe is moving radialy outwards from the 'central point'. Hence, presumably, there would be an (increasing) zone of "emptyness" around that 'central point', 'cos all the energy and matter has moved away ? Could this "creation zone" be what the scientists are seeing ? Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted August 25, 2007 #29 Share Posted August 25, 2007 An interesting thought^. If that is the case then the center of the universe has been found. How might scientists prove that this might be the case though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted August 25, 2007 #30 Share Posted August 25, 2007 If the universe was created in a 'big bang', expanding from a singularity in a (metaphorical) explosion of energy and matter, then this would surely suggest that all matter (and energy) in the universe is moving radialy outwards from the 'central point'. Hence, presumably, there would be an (increasing) zone of "emptyness" around that 'central point', 'cos all the energy and matter has moved away ? Could this "creation zone" be what the scientists are seeing ? Probably the best analogy anyone's come up for regarding the expansion of the universe is the expansion of the surface of a balloon. The flaw in the analogy is the fact that a balloon has an interior that does indeed have a sort of center, so you have to disregard that part of the balloon. But picture a balloon starting off from almost a point then expanding outward. Every point on the surface of the balloon started at that original point; similarly, the big bang, in a sense, occurred everywhere. If the surface of a balloon is all there is (i.e. no "inside") then it doesn't make sense to say the surface of the balloon is expanding away from any particular central point. Instead, every point is expanding away from every other point, though each point was once at the original singularity point. That is to say, there is no gap between here and the big bang and there is no central point away from which everything expands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 25, 2007 #31 Share Posted August 25, 2007 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'. 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 Hmm... PHOTOSHOP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted August 25, 2007 #32 Share Posted August 25, 2007 (edited) 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. Scientists nor science are perfect, they can and DO do some things wrong. And all I was saying is that we need to stop assuming so much about the universe. We know barely anything about it. Hell, I don't even like when scientists try to claim the age of the universe, because odds are(Using science =O) it's more likely that we'll have to revise the age and/or origin as we explore the universe. They don't just assume, planets too high in acidity or alkaline or basically far to hot, cannot support the building blocks of life. Who's to say there isn't some weird form of life that CAN live in those conditions? Edited August 25, 2007 by Zero of Deism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted August 25, 2007 #33 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Who's to say there isn't some weird form of life that CAN live in those conditions? Carbon based life forms say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted August 25, 2007 #34 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Probably the best analogy anyone's come up for regarding the expansion of the universe is the expansion of the surface of a balloon. The flaw in the analogy is the fact that a balloon has an interior that does indeed have a sort of center, so you have to disregard that part of the balloon. But picture a balloon starting off from almost a point then expanding outward. Every point on the surface of the balloon started at that original point; similarly, the big bang, in a sense, occurred everywhere. If the surface of a balloon is all there is (i.e. no "inside") then it doesn't make sense to say the surface of the balloon is expanding away from any particular central point. Instead, every point is expanding away from every other point, though each point was once at the original singularity point. That is to say, there is no gap between here and the big bang and there is no central point away from which everything expands. Yup - I was pretty sure my reasoning was shaky when I posted, and that it had to do with trying to model the big bang in the traditional 3 dimensions. Thanks for the explanation Startraveler. And lets hope nobody pops the balloon Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted August 26, 2007 #35 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Carbon based life forms say so We don't know enough about life to be the dictators on what can and can't happen. We know that life as we currently know it can't live in those conditions, but that's only speaking for... life as we know it. And we don't know a whole lot. Edited August 26, 2007 by Zero of Deism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positron Posted August 26, 2007 #36 Share Posted August 26, 2007 We don't know enough about life to be the dictators on what can and can't happen. We know that life as we currently know it can't live in those conditions, but that's only speaking for... life as we know it. And we don't know a whole lot. I tend to agree. We really know nothing about what is out there. I believe there is a lot we have yet to learn,if we are allowed to ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse888 Posted August 26, 2007 #37 Share Posted August 26, 2007 whats get me is how do they know its a billion years across Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted August 26, 2007 #38 Share Posted August 26, 2007 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'. Science can't assume, scientists can and do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdorablyDead Posted August 26, 2007 #39 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I don't get it, it's not a black hole so what does it do? Does it just exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Walker Posted August 26, 2007 #40 Share Posted August 26, 2007 It will be interesting to see what else they find out there, when the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) which supposed to be is 10 time more powerful than the Hubble space telescope, is lunched in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Walker Posted August 26, 2007 #41 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I don't get it, it's not a black hole so what does it do? Does it just exist? It seems what they are saying is that, it is like an "empty room" they can't "see/detect" anything in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebrakon Posted August 26, 2007 #42 Share Posted August 26, 2007 The giant black monolith. It could be filled with cold neutral anti-hydrogen. Anti-matter has anti-gravity, you know. This is my big discovery. But I haven't gotten any notice. However, if anti-matter has anti-gravity, that would explain the fountain of positrons in the center of the Milky Way, as well as the jets from quasars and active galaxies and some other situations. And it would explain the voids in our soap bubble universe. Anti-matter would try to stay as far away from other matter or anti-matter as it could. So it would push the normal and dark matter out to the edges of the bubbles where they form the super-clusters and great walls of galaxies. Send any Nobel Prizes to my email address.. (heh heh). BTW, it would be cold because neutral hydrogen is transparent, and causes cosmic rays (fast nuclei) to divert away. ~~~Cebrakon, the well-known genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvkittys7 Posted August 26, 2007 #43 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) Probably the best analogy anyone's come up for regarding the expansion of the universe is the expansion of the surface of a balloon. The flaw in the analogy is the fact that a balloon has an interior that does indeed have a sort of center, so you have to disregard that part of the balloon. But picture a balloon starting off from almost a point then expanding outward. Every point on the surface of the balloon started at that original point; similarly, the big bang, in a sense, occurred everywhere. If the surface of a balloon is all there is (i.e. no "inside") then it doesn't make sense to say the surface of the balloon is expanding away from any particular central point. Instead, every point is expanding away from every other point, though each point was once at the original singularity point. That is to say, there is no gap between here and the big bang and there is no central point away from which everything expands.I may seem a bit ignorant, here, but I don't really understand your post. Can you please try to explain again, how it compares to the balloon? I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around exactly what you are trying to say. (Might be the sleep med kicking in..Lol.) Edit: Okay, upon rereading (and few sharp shakes of my head) I think I'm starting to get what you are saying. Sorry for my thickness. Edited August 26, 2007 by Luvkittys7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted August 26, 2007 #44 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Edit: Okay, upon rereading (and few sharp shakes of my head) I think I'm starting to get what you are saying. Sorry for my thickness. No problem. If you're still looking for elaboration/clarification don't hesitate to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted August 26, 2007 #45 Share Posted August 26, 2007 (edited) 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. Change the bold to "whether or not life as we know it now can be present", and you'll be more correct. Maybe there is some bizarre life elsewhere in the universe that can live in conditions we'd never think it could possibly live in. Quit taking it further than it should be taken. Sure, we know life that we know of already wouldn't survive in those conditions, but that's just it... life as we know it. Edited August 26, 2007 by Zero of Deism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebrakon Posted August 26, 2007 #46 Share Posted August 26, 2007 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? Good statement, Torchwood. I do have a suggestion. This, and other voids are filled with neutral anti-hydrogen. That is hydrogen made from an anti-electron (positron) and an anti-proton. Anti-matter has anti-gravity, you know. Oh yes. Well known in my family of 1. Explains lots of things, including the soap-bubble medium scale organization of the universe. Anti-hydrogen would be neutral, and thus invisible. Since anti-gravity objects try to stay as far away from any other particles as they can, these bubbles produce an outward pressure on the matter around them, both dark and light. Where the bubbles collide there are strings of clusters of galaxies. Neutral anti-hydrogen atoms are light, and they push away from passing cosmic rays, which keeps them neutral, cool, and invisible. Since they are evenly distributed throughout the bubble, there would be no lensing effect. So they stay hidden. ~~Cebrakon the philosopher, creator of the forbidden sciences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted August 26, 2007 #47 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Anti-matter has anti-gravity, you know. I don't think that's the case. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picturesque Orion Posted August 26, 2007 #48 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Why are some of you guys bringing the 'life on other planets' topic on another topic ( this thread) again, it is totally offtopic, there are great discussion about that in the UFO section.... And I repeat, scientist do not assume such thing, they use the scientific method...... but they don't guess.. read my previous post for those who don't have a clue of what I am talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebrakon Posted August 26, 2007 #49 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I don't think that's the case. . . The astronomical data suggests it is. For instance, it would explain the mysterious fountain of positrons from the center of the Milky Way. It is impossible to do a lab test on the hypothesis because (1) it is impossible to control a bottle of anti-hydrogen. (2) One can create a small number of positrons held in place by electro-magnetic forces. However, one would have to null out the EM forces to about 40 decimal places (I don't remember the exact number) before you could tell how the positrons are reacting to gravity. It can't be done, especially if you weren't looking for it. ~~Cebrakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picturesque Orion Posted August 26, 2007 #50 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Illustration of the effect of matter on the cosmic microwave background (CMB). On the right, the CMB is released shortly after the Big Bang, with tiny ripples in temperature due to fluctuations in the early universe. As the radiation traverses the universe, it experiences slight perturbations. In the direction of the giant newly-discovered void, the WMAP satellite (top left) sees a cold spot, while the VLA (bottom left) sees fewer radio-emitting galaxies. CREDIT: Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF, NASA Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now