Bootes void thoughts

[Damien99 25]

Here is an interesting thought, what is the bootes void is really the product of vacuum decay? 

Edited February 17 by Waspie_Dwarf
Corrected spelling in title

[Piney 57,855]

11 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Here is an interesting thought, what is the bootes void is really the product of vacuum decay? 

Vacuum decay would spread fast and the probability of it is unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_decay

[Damien99 25]

21 minutes ago, Piney said:

Vacuum decay would spread fast and the probability of it is unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_decay

Why would it be unlikely, it’s a void in space expanding getting emptier 

[Piney 57,855]

Just now, Damien99 said:

Why would it be unlikely, it’s a void in space expanding getting emptier 

That happens when galaxies are drawn together by gravity. It's a area that has nothing to give any "pull" on anything so everything is moving away to a "attractor".

Your certainly gloomy child.  

 

[Damien99 25]

Just now, Piney said:

That happens when galaxies are drawn together by gravity. It's a area that has nothing to give any "pull" on anything so everything is moving away to a "attractor".

Your certainly gloomy child.  

 

From what I read it’s an empty area of space and seems to be getting emptier?

[Piney 57,855]

Just now, Damien99 said:

From what I read it’s an empty area of space and seems to be getting emptier?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void#Origins

and areas will as galaxy pull together. 

[Damien99 25]

I am failing to understand your reply I am sorry. 

[Piney 57,855]

5 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I am failing to understand your reply I am sorry. 

Read the link. 

I'm going to bed. I had a rough week. Talk later. 

[Damien99 25]

I did read the link, but it sure where it states has nothing to do with vacuum decay?

[Piney 57,855]

7 hours ago, Damien99 said:

I did read the link, but it sure where it states has nothing to do with vacuum decay?

Quote

There are no major apparent inconsistencies between the existence of the Boötes void and the Lambda-CDM model of cosmological evolution.^[8] It has been theorized that the Boötes void was formed from the merger of smaller voids, much like the way in which soap bubbles coalesce to form larger bubbles. This would account for the small number of galaxies that populate a roughly tube-shaped region running through the middle of the void.^[6]

 

[Habitat 8,560]

Tooth decay will give you more trouble than vacuum decay.

[Rlyeh 16,034]

12 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Why would it be unlikely, it’s a void in space expanding getting emptier 

Which would be expanding at c if it was vacuum decay.

[Damien99 25]

5 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Which would be expanding at c if it was vacuum decay.

Confused 

[Doug1029 7,019]

10 hours ago, Habitat said:

Tooth decay will give you more trouble than vacuum decay.

Considering that vacuum decay hasn't happened in our region of space in 13.7 billion years, I don't think it's real likely within my lifetime.

Doug

[Rlyeh 16,034]

3 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Confused 

No doubt.

[Waspie_Dwarf 14,156]

21 hours ago, Damien99 said:

I did read the link, but it sure where it states has nothing to do with vacuum decay?

You do realise that you can't prove a negative don't you?

No sane article will list all the thing's that aren't responsible, only those that might be.

The article also doesn't say that alien technology, holographic projectors or the flying spaghetti monster aren't responsible. Just because it doesn't say they aren't responsible doesn't mean that you can assume they are.

The very fact that the article doesn't mention vacuum decay should be enough for a rational, logical person to conclude that it is not suspected of being the cause. You seem to have done the opposite. 

[Damien99 25]

24 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You do realise that you can't prove a negative don't you?

No sane article will list all the thing's that aren't responsible, only those that might be.

The article also doesn't say that alien technology, holographic projectors or the flying spaghetti monster aren't responsible. Just because it doesn't say they aren't responsible doesn't mean that you can assume they are.

The very fact that the article doesn't mention vacuum decay should be enough for a rational, logical person to conclude that it is not suspected of being the cause. You seem to have done the opposite. 

The truth is not always stated 

[RabidMongoose 5,446]

Maybe there is an alien civilization spanning many galaxies in the Bootes Void.

Maybe they have a colossal negative energy field which dims down the light of stars, but also fiddles with the speed of light allowing them to have warp drive.

[Waspie_Dwarf 14,156]

10 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

The truth is not always stated 

What truth?

Truth is determined by evidence not wild, paranoid fiction.

In post after post you seem to be determined to believe that the universe is about to end. You make stuff up you can not support. You provide no evidence. You provide no rational argument. You show no sign of even the most basic understanding of the subject.

The best you have provided is that articles don't say you are wrong... simultaneously providing that you have no grasp of either logic or the scientific method.

There is a thing in science called the burden of proof. It means that if you have an idea, for example "the Boötes void is caused by vacuum decay," then it is up to the person that suggest the idea to prove it, not up to others to prove it wrong. That means it is entirely up to you to provide evidence.

Saying that article support you because they don't say you are wrong is an example of a logical fallacy, in this case the logical fallacy of proof of a negative. The fact that the article does not specifically state that you are wrong IS NOT the same as the article providing evidence that you are right. I gave you three other examples of things the article didn't exclude as causes of the Boötes void... there are an infinite number more, a battle between the Greek gods, a sneeze from a galaxy sized creature... the list could go on. None of them are excluded by the article but all of them have exactly the same supporting evidence as you... none at all.

Now you can carry on running around like Chicken Little, claiming that the sky is falling down, but until you start providing evidence don't expect to be taken seriously. 

My advice to you would be to read some basic astronomy books and work up from there. You might learn along the way that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the end of the universe is imminent.

[Damien99 25]

All this does not explain how lhc found in 2012 the Higgs has suddenly dropped to a low level which makes vacuum decay more possible now than ever 

and then something was discovered in 2017-18 which caused all the articles about this and vacuum decay saying how it can happen at any time. 

Edited February 17 by Damien99

[Waspie_Dwarf 14,156]

2 hours ago, Damien99 said:

All this does not explain how lhc found in 2012 the Higgs has suddenly dropped to a low level which makes vacuum decay more possible now than ever 

This is pure drivel.  The LHC could not have discovered that the Higgs boson had changed in any way at all in 2012... no one had even seen it until 2012 so there were no previous measurements  to compare it too.

You don't understand what you are talking about and are filling in the massive gaps in your understanding with pure fiction. 

2 hours ago, Damien99 said:

and then something was discovered in 2017-18 which caused all the articles about this and vacuum decay saying how it can happen at any time. 

This couldn't be more vague and meaningless if you tried. What something? Discovered by who?

[Damien99 25]

Not sure what was discovered but in 2018 all the articles started again about vacuum decay.

[Waspie_Dwarf 14,156]

Here is an a quote from wikipedia that you seem to be basing your nonsensical paranoia around:

Quote

If measurements of the Higgs boson suggest that our universe lies within a false vacuum of this kind, then it would imply – more than likely in many billions of years ^[44] – that the universe's forces, particles, and structures could cease to exist as we know them (and be replaced by different ones), if a true vacuum happened to nucleate.

Source: wikipedia

Now I'm guessing,  given that in another thread you have admitted to not evev understanding what radio signals are, that you don't understand a single word of that. Let me point out a few important parts.

The first word is IF. That means that there is no certainty that this will happen. Notice the word "imply". Again, a lack of certainty. 

Notice the time scale... billions of years. Indeed earlier in the article it says this:

Quote

In the Standard Model, there exists the possibility that the underlying state of our universe – known as the "vacuum" – is long-lived, but not completely stable. In this scenario, the universe as we know it could effectively be destroyed by collapsing into a more stable vacuum state.

Even in your worst case scenario the universe is in a long lived state. The universe as we know it will end one day, and this I'd one possible way that it will end. But with the time scales involved the sun would have expanded to a red giant, burnt the Earth to a crisp, and died long before any of your fears happen.

And even then only if the Higgs is unstable. Measurements suggest that it is close to the boundary of stability, but are not precise enough to determine exactly whether it is stable or not.

Incidentally your claims of the Higgs  "dropping to a low level", are pure fiction. There were no measurements previous to 2012. Nothing has changed in the Higgs, it's just that we are now actually able to measure it. As science advances new and more accurate measurements will be made. These will give new figures for the Higgs mass. This will not mean that the Higgs mass has changed, merely that better measurements have been made.

[Waspie_Dwarf 14,156]

16 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Not sure what was discovered but in 2018 all the articles started again about vacuum decay.

So your evidence is that something, but you don't know, what was discovered. This thing that you don't know what it is, somehow supports you.

Keep reading that until it sinks in how dumb a claim that is.

[Damien99 25]

All the articles about vacuum decay and how it can happen at any time started again in 2018,  I posted papers in my other post that something is up