Weitter Duckss Posted August 23, 2014 Author #176 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Always looking for the meaning. Things are as they really are, with or without meaning. We always want, that we are special, in order to satisfy our beliefs or look in the mirror. Everything is special and nothing is special. Intelligence us should not lead to extinction. Many things to discover and do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted August 24, 2014 #177 Share Posted August 24, 2014 StarMountainKid said: Yea, only one universe would make the probability of its existence too near zero, and make us special. When we look at the universe, intelligent life is special to itself, but is there any meaning to intelligence for the universe? Interesting point to contemplate but if we removed all intelligence from the universe i wonder would it ( the universe ) exist at all? There appears nothing in the universe that isnt derived from the universe and the question has to be asked therefore, is the universe intelligent? but of course this is just as aimless as expecting the universe to be happy or sad. To know that the ingredients of intelligence are incoporated into the fabric of the universe should be satisfying enough. But curiosity is also part of the same fabric so we continue to pursue the unknown. One thing the universe definitely is not is uncertain. It just goes on doing what it always goes on doing which is creating. I cant imagine that life or intelligence is a coincidence of creation but more likely its a purposeful projection of its self. But that doesnt mean it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted August 24, 2014 #178 Share Posted August 24, 2014 To know that the ingredients of intelligence are incoporated into the fabric of the universe should be satisfying enough. But curiosity is also part of the same fabric so we continue to pursue the unknown. Interesting thoughts, taniwha. Intelligence, curiosity, etc. were all contained in the BB, or their potential. Thus, the universe comes to an awareness of itself and having some understanding of itself. We are the universe and we are the intelligence of the universe. It's too bad we all don't think this way, we are all too concerned with our own personal lives (which is natural). When we look out at the universe we see a cold, impersonal environment. Yet the stars are our original mothers. The mysteries of space and time are the mysteries of ourselves. Is our gooey biology some fulfillment of Existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted August 24, 2014 Author #179 Share Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) The life we think and differently. The emergence of new particles with charge of arises life. Her bipolarity required to search for another particle and satisfy hunger, and achieve a state of balance. Might already in particles can talk about the intelligence because their imbalance resolved through relationships with other particles. We can assume that it is not a just a mere mechanics. Edited August 24, 2014 by Weitter Duckss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted August 25, 2014 Author #180 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Somebody asked Isaac Asimov "Why is the night sky black, why isn't it a solid mass of white because of all the trillions of stars out there?" He answered something like- "Distant stars are red-shifted to near-invisibility because of the expansion of the universe which is why we can't see them. But if the universe ever stopped expanding and began shrinking back in on itself, we WOULD see a solid white night sky but we'd be dead a short time after because all that heat energy from the trillions of stars would burn the earth to a cinder" Reluctant to answer to this. What is a blue shift? We got them so far to 7000 and in relative proximity. To does not come light there would be no reflection star in the sky. If it is it shifted in some phase why the lights inside the shell of the Earth and the atmosphere outside was dark. Blurred and educated the answer always went past with us laymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted August 25, 2014 #181 Share Posted August 25, 2014 What is a blue shift? Is that a serious question? You don`t know what a blue shift is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted August 26, 2014 Author #182 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Is that a serious question? You don`t know what a blue shift is? 100 to 7,000 galaxies with blue shift multiplied by an average of 200 billion stars we have 2o to 1,4 quadrillion stars that are not in phase and complete is dark. Mr. Asimov may have had a premonition of that's a big "contraction" in our local group is in progress! Of course it is in the rest of the universe continue to in force Bing Bang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted August 27, 2014 #183 Share Posted August 27, 2014 100 to 7,000 galaxies with blue shift multiplied by an average of 200 billion stars we have 2o to 1,4 quadrillion stars that are not in phase and complete is dark. Mr. Asimov may have had a premonition of that's a big "contraction" in our local group is in progress! Of course it is in the rest of the universe continue to in force Bing Bang! You seriously need a better translator. I have no idea what you just said. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted August 27, 2014 #184 Share Posted August 27, 2014 100 to 7,000 galaxies with blue shift multiplied by an average of 200 billion stars we have 2o to 1,4 quadrillion stars that are not in phase and complete is dark. This is an illogical statement as we recieve blue shifted and red shifted light as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted August 27, 2014 #185 Share Posted August 27, 2014 You seriously need a better translator. I have no idea what you just said. Cheers, Badeskov Yeah right but I would say that even a better translator will not bring any light into the whole story. Even not if the OP would be a native english speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted August 27, 2014 Author #186 Share Posted August 27, 2014 You seriously need a better translator. I have no idea what you just said. Cheers, Badeskov Sory...that there is quite a number of galaxies that have a blue spectral shift; the data say of no less than 100 and as much as 7 000 of them... The average galaxy has 200 billion stars. This amounts to 20 trillions - 1.4 quadrillion of stars a blue spectral shift. These stars (and galaxies) can not have a phase shift (red-shift - Asimov) and they should would illuminate the universe (our local part of the universe), though the universe is dark. The existence of a blue spectral shift excludes expansion (Big Bang) the Universe, if there is no rotation of the universe then it is logical to talk about collapsing into itself our local group of galaxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted August 28, 2014 #187 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Sory...that there is quite a number of galaxies that have a blue spectral shift; the data say of no less than 100 and as much as 7 000 of them... Fair enough, but since you are posting in the science part of this forum, you need to realize that your posts will be scrutinized by some rather smart people that we are lucky to have here at UM (no, I am not one of them - plenty of much smarter people than me). But to address your claim, why is this interesting? We are talking about statistics here. Out of how many galaxies do you think that is? The average galaxy has 200 billion stars. This amounts to 20 trillions - 1.4 quadrillion of stars a blue spectral shift. So what? Every single star in the Universe has a spectral shift and that is many more than what you quote. Most are just redshifted and thus moving away from us. So why is this interesting in any way? These stars (and galaxies) can not have a phase shift (red-shift - Asimov) It is not a phase shift. Blueshift is a decrease in wavelength, please do make an effort in educating yourself in what you would like to discuss - it is rather embarrassing to watch your continued parade of ignorance. and they should would illuminate the universe (our local part of the universe), though the universe is dark. No, they should not and we know why. Do you? Obviously not. The existence of a blue spectral shift excludes expansion (Big Bang) the Universe, if there is no rotation of the universe then it is logical to talk about collapsing into itself our local group of galaxies. By all means of respect, but you simply have no clue of what you speak. Can I suggest a primer on physics before you embarrass yourself any further? Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted August 28, 2014 Author #188 Share Posted August 28, 2014 No, they should not and we know why. Do you? Obviously not. Badeskov As if you're now on. The number of galaxies depends on the source which are different. The minimum is 100 ... The expansion is illogical to have a blue shift for the the galaxy. Number explains that this is principle, but not in expansion. Blue Shift is inside our local groupwhich additionally clarifies the topic. Why is beyond a certain distance only red-shift in the spectrum must consult the math ... I would be glad to explain what you know in order it put on the checking inside real condition in the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted September 2, 2014 #189 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Thats ripe ! Go get-em badeskovs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted September 8, 2014 Author #190 Share Posted September 8, 2014 ... It is not a phase shift. Blueshift is a decrease in wavelength, please do make an effort in educating yourself in what you would like to discuss - it is rather embarrassing to watch your continued parade of ignorance. No, they should not and we know why. Do you? Obviously not. By all means of respect, but you simply have no clue of what you speak. Can I suggest a primer on physics before you embarrass yourself any further? Cheers, Badeskov Andromeda and 100 to 7,000 galaxies are approaching the Milky Way. That is the only reality. As they approach our galaxy can not be applied a phase shift to said Asimov. What you know is built on erroneous input factors and 100 years ago. Include in your knowledge of the "new" facts: 100 - 7000 Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way! That is no Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted September 8, 2014 #191 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Include in your knowledge of the "new" facts: 100 - 7000 Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way! That is no Big Bang. "New" facts!!! Your posts have been fact free zones from the start. You make a lot of claims but you substantiate none of them, You offer no evidence apart from "Weitter Duckss says so". As all the evidence of your posts is that Weitter Duckss doesn't understand the science that he claims is wrong then, "Weitter Duckss says so," isn't good enough. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted September 8, 2014 #192 Share Posted September 8, 2014 No, they should not and we know why. Do you? Obviously not. Badeskov As if you're now on. The number of galaxies depends on the source which are different. The minimum is 100 ... This makes no sense whatsoever. You really, really need to use a better translator. What minimum? The expansion is illogical to have a blue shift for the the galaxy. Number explains that this is principle, but not in expansion. Blue Shift is inside our local groupwhich additionally clarifies the topic. Why is beyond a certain distance only red-shift in the spectrum must consult the math ... I would be glad to explain what you know in order it put on the checking inside real condition in the Universe. This is equally devoid of any sense. Please explain in greater detail, because, by all means of respect, I have no idea what you just posted - at all. Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted September 8, 2014 #193 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Andromeda and 100 to 7,000 galaxies are approaching the Milky Way. That is the only reality. I have no idea where you got those numbers from, but that is irrelevant. Lets say that 7000 galaxies are approaching us. How many do you think are increasing their distance to us. As they approach our galaxy can not be applied a phase shift to said Asimov. What are you talking about? What phase shift? How does a galaxy have a phase shift? What you know is built on erroneous input factors and 100 years ago. No. Include in your knowledge of the "new" facts: 100 - 7000 Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way! That is no Big Bang. I will re-iterate: you have no clue of what you speak. Cheers, Badeskov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted September 9, 2014 #194 Share Posted September 9, 2014 If I understand correctly; Weitter Duckss claim is that if the big bang theory is correct, then everything in the visible Universe should be moving away from us (i.e. red-shifted) at a uniform rate equivalent to the Hubble flow. Of course this is incorrect because a uniform expansion of space has absolutely nothing in common with uniform motion of galaxies, and I would argue that the motion of the galaxies in different, almost random, directions and the only average red-shift observed lends a great deal of support to the big bang model. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted September 9, 2014 Author #195 Share Posted September 9, 2014 If I understand correctly; Weitter Duckss claim is that if the big bang theory is correct, then everything in the visible Universe should be moving away from us (i.e. red-shifted) at a uniform rate equivalent to the Hubble flow. Of course this is incorrect because a uniform expansion of space has absolutely nothing in common with uniform motion of galaxies, and I would argue that the motion of the galaxies in different, almost random, directions and the only average red-shift observed lends a great deal of support to the big bang model. First, from research (Dark Flow ..) galaxies do not move in different directions, but in only one direction. Second, how the galaxies moving independently of the expansion? Third, the average (red-shift) here without any support expansion, on the contrary crashes is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted September 9, 2014 Author #196 Share Posted September 9, 2014 "New" facts!!! Your posts have been fact free zones from the start. You make a lot of claims but you substantiate none of them, You offer no evidence apart from "Weitter Duckss says so". As all the evidence of your posts is that Weitter Duckss doesn't understand the science that he claims is wrong then, "Weitter Duckss says so," isn't good enough. First, new facts are that in our Local Group of galaxies is 100 - 7000 galaxies with a blue-shift, which means that approaching the Milky Way. Second, it did not say Weitter Duckss, but are the results world of scientific research in space. Third, that the "science" elephants (polavi-shift) is shown as mice and in mice build "knowledge"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted September 9, 2014 Author #197 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I have no idea where you got those numbers from, but that is irrelevant. Lets say that 7000 galaxies are approaching us. How many do you think are increasing their distance to us. What are you talking about? What phase shift? How does a galaxy have a phase shift? No. I will re-iterate: you have no clue of what you speak. Cheers, Badeskov Distance does not increase but decreases! Consequently does not increase even space therebetween. How to get to "crash" Andromeda and the Milky Way (4.5 billion years) if the space dislocation? For additional explanations, see the topic "rotation of the universe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted September 9, 2014 #198 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Third, that the "science" elephants (polavi-shift) is shown as mice and in mice build "knowledge"? This one has me completely baffled ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted September 9, 2014 #199 Share Posted September 9, 2014 This one has me completely baffled ? Maybe the "polavi-shift" is the key here but even uncle google dont know what that is. ("Hey man, you have to be more open-minded polavi-shifted, man") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted September 9, 2014 #200 Share Posted September 9, 2014 First, from research (Dark Flow ..) galaxies do not move in different directions, but in only one direction. That is absolutely, quantifiably, and demonstrably untrue. ``Dark Flow'' represents an average non-random component of the velocities of a statistically significant collection of galaxies. That does not mean that all galaxies are moving in the same direction. 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