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

GreyWeather
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.

True. But it's a safer bet you'll find life if you know what you're looking for, than something you have no idea what to look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
character

hmm, patches in the sky, kinda reminds me of the lexx series, where the universe was beeing eaten by von neuman machines :blink: kinda creepy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legatus Legionis

why would such void exist? what's its purpose?

BTW i noticed that almost half of the comments and/or replies here are off-topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei
why would such void exist? what's its purpose?

Did you even read the main article? Did you even take the time to see the diagram I posted here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legatus Legionis
Did you even read the main article? Did you even take the time to see the diagram I posted here?

yes. but i'm still confused. don't be such a tiger. and i'm also asking if what's it's purpose?

Edited by LiGhTyAgAmi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
Did you even read the main article? Did you even take the time to see the diagram I posted here?

Be nice Alex01.. the diagrams you posted showed evidence of these holes, but did not address the issue of how/why they came to be, which was the thrust of LightyAgami's question :)

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legatus Legionis
Be nice Alex01.. the diagrams you posted showed evidence of these holes, but did not address the issue of how/why they came to be, which was the thrust of LightyAgami's question :)

Meow Purr.

there ya go. a nice and good reply. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cebrakon
why would such void exist? what's its purpose?

:D 50% on topic? That's not bad. I don't mind. Sometimes the off-topic entries are funny. I am impressed with the illustration of the giant telescope finding a cold spot in the CMBR, plus the VLA data showing that there are few or no galaxies in this cold spot, and no gravitational lensing due to dark matter. That seems a complete statement of the evidence known to academic scientists. I often tell you things unknown to academic scientists. Well, why don't I just send them letters or articles? Credentials. I ain't got no credentials. While I do have a Ph.D., I am a retired philosopher, not a member of any academic organization. I have been invited once or twice, but it costs money, and I live on the thin edge of poverty, i.e., what Social Security pays, minus medical costs that it doesn't pay. I don't complain, though. I like Medicare. Everyone should be so lucky. (Definitely off-topic).

:P I am an enthusiastic amateur when it comes to physics and astronomy. The contributions of amateurs have often been excellent in earlier days of science.

To answer Lightyagami (how do you pronounce that?), I have proposed an idea explaining why voids exist. On a medium scale (the new void is one billion light-years across) the universe resembles a pile of soap bubbles. A female astronomer named Vera Rubin discovered that. She should certainly get a Nobel Prize for that. I won't repeat my earlier explanation. As to its purpose, scientists would say nature has no purpose. But if you study the The Forbidden Sciences, you may come up with a different conclusion. However, even then I do not know of a specific purpose for this soap bubble structure. I am charmed by its infinite beauty, however. :ph34r:

~~~Cebrakon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei
yes. but i'm still confused. don't be such a tiger. and i'm also asking if what's it's purpose?

Be nice Alex01.. the diagrams you posted showed evidence of these holes, but did not address the issue of how/why they came to be, which was the thrust of LightyAgami's question

Meow Purr.

Ok, please accept my apologies.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
Ok, please accept my apologies.:)

DENIED. Get down and give me 3.7 x ten (power 27) pushups :D

Just kidding :D. Thanks for posting the pictures of the CMB results: good stuff :)

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legatus Legionis
:D 50% on topic? That's not bad. I don't mind. Sometimes the off-topic entries are funny. I am impressed with the illustration of the giant telescope finding a cold spot in the CMBR, plus the VLA data showing that there are few or no galaxies in this cold spot, and no gravitational lensing due to dark matter. That seems a complete statement of the evidence known to academic scientists. I often tell you things unknown to academic scientists. Well, why don't I just send them letters or articles? Credentials. I ain't got no credentials. While I do have a Ph.D., I am a retired philosopher, not a member of any academic organization. I have been invited once or twice, but it costs money, and I live on the thin edge of poverty, i.e., what Social Security pays, minus medical costs that it doesn't pay. I don't complain, though. I like Medicare. Everyone should be so lucky. (Definitely off-topic).

:P I am an enthusiastic amateur when it comes to physics and astronomy. The contributions of amateurs have often been excellent in earlier days of science.

To answer Lightyagami (how do you pronounce that?), I have proposed an idea explaining why voids exist. On a medium scale (the new void is one billion light-years across) the universe resembles a pile of soap bubbles. A female astronomer named Vera Rubin discovered that. She should certainly get a Nobel Prize for that. I won't repeat my earlier explanation. As to its purpose, scientists would say nature has no purpose. But if you study the The Forbidden Sciences, you may come up with a different conclusion. However, even then I do not know of a specific purpose for this soap bubble structure. I am charmed by its infinite beauty, however. :ph34r:

~~~Cebrakon

Thanks Cebrakon. nice link too.. thanks. I'm quite amazed at how small we know about the universe. in truth if i had not read this topic, i wouldn't have know that such voids a.k.a Soap bubbles existed.

Ok, please accept my apologies.:)

no problem, i don't take things personally. i take them professionally. as not to break my gentle emotions.

DENIED. Get down and give me 3.7 x ten (power 27) pushups :D

Just kidding :D. Thanks for posting the pictures of the CMB results: good stuff :)

Meow Purr.

i agree.. but even with Cebrakon's explanation, the question will still float on my head for quite long period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
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.

That's simply not so. We know a great deal about the universe. This is an appeal to irrationality.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Legatus Legionis
That's simply not so. We know a great deal about the universe. This is an appeal to irrationality.

if we knew a great deal about this so called universe of ours. then why are there so many many questions and mysteries yet to be solved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

Hmmm..... I'd suggest that we have OBSERVED a great deal about the universe.

We have also used the "scientific method" to try and understand the "rules" of our own little patch, modified by telescope observations (inc. non-visible-light telescopes and particle detectors) of area's beyong our 'patch'.

I'd suggest that we don't really KNOW about the wider universe... we have theories and hypothesis's derived from aforementioned observations.. but to say we "know"... that's a bit strong.

But to say we know "nothing" is - whillst linguisticly correct - inaccurate in reality, and unhelpful.

Why are there so many unanswered questions ? Well, it's not the purpose of science to ANSWER the questions, but merely to codify what happens, and try and deduce patterns. (with a view to understanding the underlying 'rulebook'.) This is not a project, but an ongoing process.

Only 120 years ago the prevailing opinion was that Physics - as a science - was pretty much finished. All the great discoveries had been made. There was a little bit of 'tidying up' to be done, and then the book could be closed. Then some idiot (Herz ? ) shone a light through two slits on a bit of paper, and the universe changed. (at least for the scientists).

Quo Vadis ?

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei
Hmmm..... I'd suggest that we have OBSERVED a great deal about the universe.

We have also used the "scientific method" to try and understand the "rules" of our own little patch, modified by telescope observations (inc. non-visible-light telescopes and particle detectors) of area's beyong our 'patch'.

I'd suggest that we don't really KNOW about the wider universe... we have theories and hypothesis's derived from aforementioned observations.. but to say we "know"... that's a bit strong.

But to say we know "nothing" is - whillst linguisticly correct - inaccurate in reality, and unhelpful.

Why are there so many unanswered questions ? Well, it's not the purpose of science to ANSWER the questions, but merely to codify what happens, and try and deduce patterns. (with a view to understanding the underlying 'rulebook'.) This is not a project, but an ongoing process.

Only 120 years ago the prevailing opinion was that Physics - as a science - was pretty much finished. All the great discoveries had been made. There was a little bit of 'tidying up' to be done, and then the book could be closed. Then some idiot (Herz ? ) shone a light through two slits on a bit of paper, and the universe changed. (at least for the scientists).

Quo Vadis ?

Meow Purr.

I totally agree really. The Universe is still filled with mysteries, questions and the unknown, we cannot expect to fully understand it by observing and using the scientific method. We still have many things to do to fully understand the universe, it's laws and unreveal it's secrets. We still have much observing and studying to do, we still have much more reasearch to do to fully understand the universe. Astronomy is the peak of science, the most complex, the most mysterious.

Much of what we know today about the universe are just theories, theories may be true but may also be not true, many theories have been prooved wrong and many theories have been proved righ, and some are still to be decided( Dark matter, Black holes, Big band).

This void is still filled with mystery, we still have much researching and studying to do, the article is just a mear announcement. Actually most objects that we have discovered in the universe to today still need alot of observing, studying, and reaserching to do. Because we do not fully comprehend them and there is alwas that small question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

I agree without reservations Alex01.

But lets not get maudlin. Here's a song by Monty Python.

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving

And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,

That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

A sun that is the source of all our power.

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see

Are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,

Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.

It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.

It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,

But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.

We go 'round every two hundred million years,

And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions

In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding

In all of the directions it can whizz

As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,

Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,

How amazingly unlikely is your birth,

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,

'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Meow PURR :D

Edited by ships-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei

Hehe I know that song and I love it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat
Hehe I know that song and I love it. :)

I hesitated to post it.. 'cos it could be deemed trivial and "off-topic"..

..and yet... and yet...

I'm glad you like it Alex01.

Oh ... and if you remember the Graphics sequence they used for the song... it brings a 'hole' new meaning to the discussion of galactic holes.

err...

Perhaps we should move on ?

Meow PUrr.

Edited by ships-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei

Like Cebrakon said: 50% on topic? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~ MacDDT ~
It could be filled with cold neutral anti-hydrogen. Anti-matter has anti-gravity, you know. This is my big discovery.

Wouldn't "cold neutral anti-hydrogen" give off radiation that you could read or weight that you could measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cebrakon
Wouldn't "cold neutral anti-hydrogen" give off radiation that you could read or weight that you could measure?

Usually measurements of weight depend on Newton's formula, F = - m*A; the negative sign means attractive, F is the gravitational force, while A is the acceleration due to that force if it is the acceleration of an unconstrained variable. Specifically, the second derivative of a spatial variable with respect to time. This turns Newton's second law into a second order differential equation (ODE). If you already know the motion, you can deduce the mass. For anti-gravity, take away the minus sign. If one could measure the expansion of the bubble (1 billion light-years in diameter), then one could, indeed, deduce the mass of the cool anti-hydrogen. However, the expansion may not be a free variable. It appears to stop when it runs into the other bubbles. At least, no one has measured any expansion of one of these bubbles that I know about.

Cold neutral anti-hydrogen might be measurable on the 21 cm line by a radio telescope. It is something to think about, anyway. However, in order to emit, it must first absorb. The 21 cm line on the spectrum is usually caused by a bunch of neutral hydrogen bumping and banging into each other in a Brownian motion. Anti-hydrogen wouldn't do that. It avoids all contact. A true hermit of the

universe.

~~~Cebrakon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luvkittys7
Usually measurements of weight depend on Newton's formula, F = - m*A; the negative sign means attractive, F is the gravitational force, while A is the acceleration due to that force if it is the acceleration of an unconstrained variable. Specifically, the second derivative of a spatial variable with respect to time. This turns Newton's second law into a second order differential equation (ODE). If you already know the motion, you can deduce the mass. For anti-gravity, take away the minus sign. If one could measure the expansion of the bubble (1 billion light-years in diameter), then one could, indeed, deduce the mass of the cool anti-hydrogen. However, the expansion may not be a free variable. It appears to stop when it runs into the other bubbles. At least, no one has measured any expansion of one of these bubbles that I know about.

Cold neutral anti-hydrogen might be measurable on the 21 cm line by a radio telescope. It is something to think about, anyway. However, in order to emit, it must first absorb. The 21 cm line on the spectrum is usually caused by a bunch of neutral hydrogen bumping and banging into each other in a Brownian motion. Anti-hydrogen wouldn't do that. It avoids all contact. A true hermit of the

universe.

~~~Cebrakon

You are too smart for me. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persei
You are too smart for me. LOL!

Not just smart, but very well informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cebrakon
Not just smart, but very well informed.

Thank you Luvkittys7 and Alexs01. Don't let it intimidate you. I may be a complete crackpot....Dr.H. aka Cebrakon

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.