New man
Grays want a hybrid that is skinny, not outside worthy, bent to large complex machinery [Moderator: Only someone privy to the Grays' plans would know what they want. Ergo, you are a traitor to humanity.]
People want to be people as their part of the humanoid league, that is up to two million light years from Earth.
The cooling down of the universe,. Is not verified. So why make people beings skinny on dope paste protein tablets bent to machinery people?
Not all humanoids in the humanoid league, barring, (small differences such as gills red hair, some scales, the ability to hop , ((not sold in store with batteries or complete instructions included)), want to be subservient to machines that control things.
So what is it, are we going into the big cool down or what?
Is there something in the drinking water where you are? Because that's utterly incoherent.
Did I miss the memo about posting random nonsense on PhysOrg? There seems to be more than usual at the moment.
Did I miss the memo about posting random nonsense on PhysOrg? There seems to be more than usual at the moment.
Apparently some people are now working on syntax and grammar filters to reduce nonsense in internet communication. I don't know the details but the moderators may find it worth looking into.
Every being has the right to self determination. I’m not in a seditious league with someone else here.
We’ve been infiltrated as a society.
Our guest of the military have been into everything.
The question stands as it relates to the modification of mankind, as this might relate to the greater cosmos, is the universe going into the big cool down or is the perceived actions of said dark matter pools pushing the galaxies further apart, only an optical illusion.
Yes, this does relate to our right to self determination as a species.
QUOTE (philip347+Jul 12 2009, 12:32 PM)
Every being has the right to self determination. I’m not in a seditious league with someone else here.
We’ve been infiltrated as a society.
Our guest of the military have been into everything.
The question stands as it relates to the modification of mankind, as this might relate to the greater cosmos, is the universe going into the big cool down or is the perceived actions of said dark matter pools pushing the galaxies further apart, only an optical illusion.
Yes, this does relate to our right to self determination as a species.
I want some of whatever you're smoking.
We’ve been infiltrated as a society.
Our guest of the military have been into everything.
The question stands as it relates to the modification of mankind, as this might relate to the greater cosmos, is the universe going into the big cool down or is the perceived actions of said dark matter pools pushing the galaxies further apart, only an optical illusion.
Yes, this does relate to our right to self determination as a species.
I want some of whatever you're smoking.
Moderator said
The source was relayed to me by a person who had contacts themselves.
Because of certain treaties involved, I had promised not to divulge my source.
Not all Grays are the same. They all differ greatly both in temperament and intent.
Part of their aim is to invest some highly modified humans into manning their machine controls future weather patterns.
I do not know if this will work?
These actions beg the question, {Just where is the universe going with respects to either the same nature in temperature patterns, or a possible cooling down, which has become an open issue}?
This situation affects human beings, so it is your right to ask the question if the Grays move to make more hybrid humans to man vast underground machinery, has something to do with a new trend within predicted cosmologies?
I know of one place known as Planet Clarion that also has humanoids that are undergoing hybridization.
There was a photo of one of these posted at costtocoast.com.
Their hybridization humanoid program is much more out in the open than ours.
This action by the Greys defiantly affects our collective destinies. So anyone here has the right to ask if this move has something to do with a possible predicted cooling down of the universe?
This is your right to know.
QUOTE
Only someone privy to the Grays' plans would know what they want. Ergo, you are a traitor to humanity.]
The source was relayed to me by a person who had contacts themselves.
Because of certain treaties involved, I had promised not to divulge my source.
Not all Grays are the same. They all differ greatly both in temperament and intent.
Part of their aim is to invest some highly modified humans into manning their machine controls future weather patterns.
I do not know if this will work?
These actions beg the question, {Just where is the universe going with respects to either the same nature in temperature patterns, or a possible cooling down, which has become an open issue}?
This situation affects human beings, so it is your right to ask the question if the Grays move to make more hybrid humans to man vast underground machinery, has something to do with a new trend within predicted cosmologies?
I know of one place known as Planet Clarion that also has humanoids that are undergoing hybridization.
There was a photo of one of these posted at costtocoast.com.
Their hybridization humanoid program is much more out in the open than ours.
This action by the Greys defiantly affects our collective destinies. So anyone here has the right to ask if this move has something to do with a possible predicted cooling down of the universe?
This is your right to know.
QUOTE (philip347+Jul 11 2009, 11:48 AM)
[Moderator: Only someone privy to the Grays' plans would know what they want. Ergo, you are a traitor to humanity.]
I'm no lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice, but I have never heard of contracts or treaties absolving one of charges of treason. That's probably because treason goes to the heart of trustworthiness without which there can be no treaties or contracts.
Without source, you effortlessly cite the Grays' plans in detail and attempt to effect changes in public policy. It all seems just to pat for you to have come by the information by any innocent means.
Without source, you effortlessly cite the Grays' plans in detail and attempt to effect changes in public policy. It all seems just to pat for you to have come by the information by any innocent means.
To rpenner; Your after me and not the substance of the question.
QUOTE (philip347+Jul 13 2009, 09:35 AM)
To rpenner; Your after me and not the substance of the question.
Unfortunately, both you and your question lack substance.
Unfortunately, both you and your question lack substance.
And you call me a crackpot?!
You have people posting stuff like that and you are equating me to them? I think Flyingbuttressman and Mjolnirpants do nothing all day but sit around and criticize people. They have gotten into this routine so much that they forget how to even tell the difference between a real crackpot and someone who's just looking for more information.
You have people posting stuff like that and you are equating me to them? I think Flyingbuttressman and Mjolnirpants do nothing all day but sit around and criticize people. They have gotten into this routine so much that they forget how to even tell the difference between a real crackpot and someone who's just looking for more information.
MoonDragn
So... are saying that Philip347's characterization of the alien invasion is correct... or that he is just looking for information about the alien invasion?
Because that stuff is certainly not what crackpot theories are made of.
So... are saying that Philip347's characterization of the alien invasion is correct... or that he is just looking for information about the alien invasion?
Because that stuff is certainly not what crackpot theories are made of.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 13 2009, 03:56 PM)
MoonDragn
So... are saying that Philip347's characterization of the alien invasion is correct... or that he is just looking for information about the alien invasion?
Because that stuff is certainly not what crackpot theories are made of.
Heck, no, I'm saying he's a crackpot and if you guys can't tell the difference between those of us who are just mistaken on scientific facts and those that are really crazy, then you guys are the ones who are ignorant.
So... are saying that Philip347's characterization of the alien invasion is correct... or that he is just looking for information about the alien invasion?
Because that stuff is certainly not what crackpot theories are made of.
Heck, no, I'm saying he's a crackpot and if you guys can't tell the difference between those of us who are just mistaken on scientific facts and those that are really crazy, then you guys are the ones who are ignorant.
OK... that was a bit of a non sequitur MoonDragn. Keep in mind that Philip would certainly disagree with you there. 
However, I am usually fine with people asking questions.. so I don't really know what you are referring to.
However, I am usually fine with people asking questions.. so I don't really know what you are referring to.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 10:52 AM)
You have people posting stuff like that and you are equating me to them? I think Flyingbuttressman and Mjolnirpants do nothing all day but sit around and criticize people. They have gotten into this routine so much that they forget how to even tell the difference between a real crackpot and someone who's just looking for more information.
It's true that you aren't the worst offender, but you do exhibit crank-ish qualities nonetheless. You questioned the integrity of the entire scientific community by claiming that they 'fudge' numbers to make the facts fit their theories. This shows me that you do not understand the basic motivation for most scientists. As a scientist, disproving established theory is the best thing you can do for your career. 'Fudging' the numbers is not only criminal, but it would quickly be discovered by other scientists.
I will admit that I was a little mean before, but you need to understand that we are all critics here. You were trying to say that scientists can't tell the difference between a universe with a center and a universe that expanded from one point. It went downhill from there. :\
Your reputation here is taken on a thread by thread basis. If your comments are logical, you will be treated well. If your comments are illogical or unreasonable, you will be criticized.
It's true that you aren't the worst offender, but you do exhibit crank-ish qualities nonetheless. You questioned the integrity of the entire scientific community by claiming that they 'fudge' numbers to make the facts fit their theories. This shows me that you do not understand the basic motivation for most scientists. As a scientist, disproving established theory is the best thing you can do for your career. 'Fudging' the numbers is not only criminal, but it would quickly be discovered by other scientists.
I will admit that I was a little mean before, but you need to understand that we are all critics here. You were trying to say that scientists can't tell the difference between a universe with a center and a universe that expanded from one point. It went downhill from there. :\
Your reputation here is taken on a thread by thread basis. If your comments are logical, you will be treated well. If your comments are illogical or unreasonable, you will be criticized.
Point of order in this thread.
In the Susan Blakely Black stared movie,. (Taken), there is a showing of a hybrid child.
This book and movie was a said composite of tellings, of normal nonmilitary people, and their encounters with Greys types of aliens.
Two, in the book (Glimpses Into Other Realities), by Linda Howe, there is also a telling of treaties agreed to with apparent Greys, as part of not well known contacts with said governments and aliens.
Note, this is not the substance in whole, of what is at issue here.
The simple question arises as this has to do with evolutionary biologies, is the Greys attempts at creating hybrid humanoids, in some way linked to a supposed cooling down of the universe.
For those who are wandering if they should have even gotten out of bed and wandered into this thread, the question has to do with supposed ages of the said universe.
If the oldest rock on Earth, once said to be the Minnesota rock, is some four point six billion years of age, then this would mean that Earth as a planet would have to range roughly in the one fifth or less percentage of the entire age of the universe.
This guess cant possibly be, as this would mean that the age of the possible planets noted in the Hubble deep wide field exploration, being many light years away, would have to be related to the age of Earth.
So maybe, the age of the universe is more than a mere seventeen billions of years of age?
What the nature of the question should lead to, is the proper age of the universe, as this would relate to the predicted cool-down and or supposed to be related contraction out of a known tensor field, of the state of the universe.
So the question is valid.
In the Susan Blakely Black stared movie,. (Taken), there is a showing of a hybrid child.
This book and movie was a said composite of tellings, of normal nonmilitary people, and their encounters with Greys types of aliens.
Two, in the book (Glimpses Into Other Realities), by Linda Howe, there is also a telling of treaties agreed to with apparent Greys, as part of not well known contacts with said governments and aliens.
Note, this is not the substance in whole, of what is at issue here.
The simple question arises as this has to do with evolutionary biologies, is the Greys attempts at creating hybrid humanoids, in some way linked to a supposed cooling down of the universe.
For those who are wandering if they should have even gotten out of bed and wandered into this thread, the question has to do with supposed ages of the said universe.
If the oldest rock on Earth, once said to be the Minnesota rock, is some four point six billion years of age, then this would mean that Earth as a planet would have to range roughly in the one fifth or less percentage of the entire age of the universe.
This guess cant possibly be, as this would mean that the age of the possible planets noted in the Hubble deep wide field exploration, being many light years away, would have to be related to the age of Earth.
So maybe, the age of the universe is more than a mere seventeen billions of years of age?
What the nature of the question should lead to, is the proper age of the universe, as this would relate to the predicted cool-down and or supposed to be related contraction out of a known tensor field, of the state of the universe.
So the question is valid.
Phillip isn't a crank.
He's an out and out crazy.
He's an out and out crazy.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 10:52 AM)
And you call me a crackpot?!
Yes. Not as wacky (or gullible or stupid) as Phillip, but a crackpot nonetheless.
Yep. See above.
Yep. See above.
I think Flyingbuttressman and Mjolnirpants do nothing all day but sit around and criticize people.
And tlocity thinks homosexuals are evil. Whoop dee doo.
As far as the accuracy of your opinion goes:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421284
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421268
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421265
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421002
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420822
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420704
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420675
Those are just from the first page of my posting history. All of them are posts which contain no criticism, or posts which contain more than just criticism. Two of them were directed to you, and you quoted and responded to both of them you lying sack of puss.
Yet for all of that I'm invariably proven right on such matters.... Weird. I guess I'm just the luckiest guy in the world...
If something is infinite, how can it have a center? A center is the point equidistant from all edges, but if the universe if infinite, it has no edges.
Yes. Not as wacky (or gullible or stupid) as Phillip, but a crackpot nonetheless.
QUOTE
You have people posting stuff like that and you are equating me to them?
Yep. See above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have people posting stuff like that and you are equating me to them? |
Yep. See above.
I think Flyingbuttressman and Mjolnirpants do nothing all day but sit around and criticize people.
And tlocity thinks homosexuals are evil. Whoop dee doo.
As far as the accuracy of your opinion goes:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421284
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421268
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421265
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=421002
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420822
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420704
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=420675
Those are just from the first page of my posting history. All of them are posts which contain no criticism, or posts which contain more than just criticism. Two of them were directed to you, and you quoted and responded to both of them you lying sack of puss.
QUOTE
They have gotten into this routine so much that they forget how to even tell the difference between a real crackpot and someone who's just looking for more information.
Yet for all of that I'm invariably proven right on such matters.... Weird. I guess I'm just the luckiest guy in the world...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 04:10 PM)
It's true that you aren't the worst offender, but you do exhibit crank-ish qualities nonetheless. You questioned the integrity of the entire scientific community by claiming that they 'fudge' numbers to make the facts fit their theories. This shows me that you do not understand the basic motivation for most scientists. As a scientist, disproving established theory is the best thing you can do for your career. 'Fudging' the numbers is not only criminal, but it would quickly be discovered by other scientists.
I will admit that I was a little mean before, but you need to understand that we are all critics here. You were trying to say that scientists can't tell the difference between a universe with a center and a universe that expanded from one point. It went downhill from there. :\
Your reputation here is taken on a thread by thread basis. If your comments are logical, you will be treated well. If your comments are illogical or unreasonable, you will be criticized.
I wasn't questioning the existing theories. What I was asking was if it there was another senario possible to explain the expansion.
You and others explained the expansion by mentioning dark energy. But that didn't really answer the question I was really asking, which was, "Is the universe an enclosed system, or infinitely large". Another words, did the creation of the universe cause the space time fabric to become bigger and bigger? or did space-time exist already and the big bang just filled the existing space.
With gas molecues, they expand to fill an enclosed space, but with a balloon, it increases the volume as you put more gas. Which is it? and how would you know?
Thats why I was asking if there could be other possibilities.
I will admit that I was a little mean before, but you need to understand that we are all critics here. You were trying to say that scientists can't tell the difference between a universe with a center and a universe that expanded from one point. It went downhill from there. :\
Your reputation here is taken on a thread by thread basis. If your comments are logical, you will be treated well. If your comments are illogical or unreasonable, you will be criticized.
I wasn't questioning the existing theories. What I was asking was if it there was another senario possible to explain the expansion.
You and others explained the expansion by mentioning dark energy. But that didn't really answer the question I was really asking, which was, "Is the universe an enclosed system, or infinitely large". Another words, did the creation of the universe cause the space time fabric to become bigger and bigger? or did space-time exist already and the big bang just filled the existing space.
With gas molecues, they expand to fill an enclosed space, but with a balloon, it increases the volume as you put more gas. Which is it? and how would you know?
Thats why I was asking if there could be other possibilities.
OK... I am going to go against Mjolnirpants here for a sec.
I say it's ok to let bygones be bygones. Let's stop all the antipathy and let MoonDragn be judged by his future posts.
As an aside, you have to understand why some people are hostile to those who come off as cranks. After months of having people post complete inanity and refusing to see any kind of sense... alien conspirators, fake prophets, self proclaimed physicists, etc.... it gets kind of tiresome. Let's try to get back on track shall we.
I say it's ok to let bygones be bygones. Let's stop all the antipathy and let MoonDragn be judged by his future posts.
As an aside, you have to understand why some people are hostile to those who come off as cranks. After months of having people post complete inanity and refusing to see any kind of sense... alien conspirators, fake prophets, self proclaimed physicists, etc.... it gets kind of tiresome. Let's try to get back on track shall we.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 13 2009, 04:50 PM)
Those are just from the first page of my posting history. All of them are posts which contain no criticism, or posts which contain more than just criticism. Two of them were directed to you, and you quoted and responded to both of them you lying sack of puss.
Yet for all of that I'm invariably proven right on such matters.... Weird. I guess I'm just the luckiest guy in the world...
I see a lot of criticism in those posts not directed at me. Which actually proves my point, not disproves it. As for you being invariably right, even idiots believe they are geniuses in their own mind.
You are just another proof of that.
Yet for all of that I'm invariably proven right on such matters.... Weird. I guess I'm just the luckiest guy in the world...
I see a lot of criticism in those posts not directed at me. Which actually proves my point, not disproves it. As for you being invariably right, even idiots believe they are geniuses in their own mind.
You are just another proof of that.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 12:06 PM)
You and others explained the expansion by mentioning dark energy. But that didn't really answer the question I was really asking, which was, "Is the universe an enclosed system, or infinitely large". Another words, did the creation of the universe cause the space time fabric to become bigger and bigger? or did space-time exist already and the big bang just filled the existing space.
With gas molecues, they expand to fill an enclosed space, but with a balloon, it increases the volume as you put more gas. Which is it? and how would you know?
What we were trying to say is that there is a testable difference between an infinite universe and a 'balloon' universe. A balloon universe will have no center, while an infinite universe would. What we have said is that according to all evidence, the universe has no center. Thus, the universe is not infinite.
With gas molecues, they expand to fill an enclosed space, but with a balloon, it increases the volume as you put more gas. Which is it? and how would you know?
What we were trying to say is that there is a testable difference between an infinite universe and a 'balloon' universe. A balloon universe will have no center, while an infinite universe would. What we have said is that according to all evidence, the universe has no center. Thus, the universe is not infinite.
QUOTE
A balloon universe will have no center, while an infinite universe would.
If something is infinite, how can it have a center? A center is the point equidistant from all edges, but if the universe if infinite, it has no edges.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 13 2009, 12:18 PM)
If something is infinite, how can it have a center? A center is the point equidistant from all edges, but if the universe if infinite, it has no edges.
Sorry, the known universe would have a center since all matter would have to come from 1 point which hasn't expanded. In other words, you could draw a circle around all known matter and find the center point. In the case of a 'balloon' universe there would be no center because all points were originally the center.
Am I making any sense?
Sorry, the known universe would have a center since all matter would have to come from 1 point which hasn't expanded. In other words, you could draw a circle around all known matter and find the center point. In the case of a 'balloon' universe there would be no center because all points were originally the center.
Am I making any sense?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 13 2009, 12:10 PM)
OK... I am going to go against Mjolnirpants here for a sec.
I say it's ok to let bygones be bygones. Let's stop all the antipathy and let MoonDragn be judged by his future posts.
As an aside, you have to understand why some people are hostile to those who come off as cranks. After months of having people post complete inanity and refusing to see any kind of sense... alien conspirators, fake prophets, self proclaimed physicists, etc.... it gets kind of tiresome. Let's try to get back on track shall we.
You're not going against me at all. I'm all for judging people by their most recent posts first and foremost. vkamath was a poster who showed up here supporting the cranks, only to change his disposition after seeing the tactics displayed by the cranks in comparison to those displayed by the non-cranks, and as such, I have a lot of respect for him. Go through my posting history and you'll see plenty of examples of me (attempting to, sometimes, but often succeeding) in conversing civilly with posters like Confused2 or Raphie Frank. These instances occur because their most recent posts bear out my decision to converse civilly. It's only when they return to their crank-like behavior that I become belligerent.
However, view MoonDragn's most recent post: He sees evidence refuting his point and claims it's evidence supporting his point. (Assuming he even read any of those links.)
No.
No one can at this time and anyone who says they can is lying.
The problem is that traditional physics... or any physics that we know of for that matter... breaks down at moment 0, the time where the Big Bang first manifests, often referred to as the Planck Epoch. Generally at this time, it is believed that time and space started at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a lot of controversy about this period, however anything past 10^-11 seconds is fairly well understood.
No.
No one can at this time and anyone who says they can is lying.
The problem is that traditional physics... or any physics that we know of for that matter... breaks down at moment 0, the time where the Big Bang first manifests, often referred to as the Planck Epoch. Generally at this time, it is believed that time and space started at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a lot of controversy about this period, however anything past 10^-11 seconds is fairly well understood.
So are you saying that our theories are based on what we define the beginning of the universe as? The start of all time and space?
So if this was not true, then there could be another explaination?
So far the only evidence we have that the universe is expanding is the redshift right? Is there other evidence?
Do we know if wavelengths of light can change after traveling long distances?(lightyears). We already know Gravity can affect wavelength, can't something else as well?
If there is some mysterious dark energy pulling at the fabric of matter and energy, would it not affect light and other electromagnetic radiation as well?
There is the CMB. It exactly matches what the BB theory predicts it should be.
There is the CMB. It exactly matches what the BB theory predicts it should be.
You know, try as I might, I can't think of anything to explain the CMB the way it is without the Big Bang Theory.
I say it's ok to let bygones be bygones. Let's stop all the antipathy and let MoonDragn be judged by his future posts.
As an aside, you have to understand why some people are hostile to those who come off as cranks. After months of having people post complete inanity and refusing to see any kind of sense... alien conspirators, fake prophets, self proclaimed physicists, etc.... it gets kind of tiresome. Let's try to get back on track shall we.
You're not going against me at all. I'm all for judging people by their most recent posts first and foremost. vkamath was a poster who showed up here supporting the cranks, only to change his disposition after seeing the tactics displayed by the cranks in comparison to those displayed by the non-cranks, and as such, I have a lot of respect for him. Go through my posting history and you'll see plenty of examples of me (attempting to, sometimes, but often succeeding) in conversing civilly with posters like Confused2 or Raphie Frank. These instances occur because their most recent posts bear out my decision to converse civilly. It's only when they return to their crank-like behavior that I become belligerent.
However, view MoonDragn's most recent post: He sees evidence refuting his point and claims it's evidence supporting his point. (Assuming he even read any of those links.)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Sorry, the known universe would have a center since all matter would have to come from 1 point which hasn't expanded. In other words, you could draw a circle around all known matter and find the center point. In the case of a 'balloon' universe there would be no center because all points were originally the center.
Am I making any sense?
No.
Hehe, just playing with you. I know what you're getting at and you're right.
Am I making any sense?
No.
Hehe, just playing with you. I know what you're getting at and you're right.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 05:20 PM)
Sorry, the known universe would have a center since all matter would have to come from 1 point which hasn't expanded. In other words, you could draw a circle around all known matter and find the center point. In the case of a 'balloon' universe there would be no center because all points were originally the center.
Am I making any sense?
Would'nt this only be true if all matter in the universe were created at the same time? Yet we know for a fact that supernovas are constantly occuring and new blackholes appear. So, would the same true center idea really work?
If not, why? Lets ignore everything for a moment and concentrate on the event of one supernova. When it explodes, matter would be moving in all directions. So the whole "everything is moving apart from each other", is not really true, because some of it is moving towards us.
When we talk about this expansion, are we only dealing in the NET vector?
Am I making any sense?
Would'nt this only be true if all matter in the universe were created at the same time? Yet we know for a fact that supernovas are constantly occuring and new blackholes appear. So, would the same true center idea really work?
If not, why? Lets ignore everything for a moment and concentrate on the event of one supernova. When it explodes, matter would be moving in all directions. So the whole "everything is moving apart from each other", is not really true, because some of it is moving towards us.
When we talk about this expansion, are we only dealing in the NET vector?
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 12:31 PM)
If not, why? Lets ignore everything for a moment and concentrate on the event of one supernova. When it explodes, matter would be moving in all directions. So the whole "everything is moving apart from each other", is not really true, because some of it is moving towards us.
When we talk about this expansion, are we only dealing in the NET vector?
In a supernova, there will always be a large quantity of matter that is not moving away from you, and it will all be in the same direction and within a certain distance (the matter chasing you away from the center). In the real universe, this is not the case. All galaxy clusters are moving away from us.
Also, if there were multiple big bangs, then we should be able to see earlier ones.
When we talk about this expansion, are we only dealing in the NET vector?
In a supernova, there will always be a large quantity of matter that is not moving away from you, and it will all be in the same direction and within a certain distance (the matter chasing you away from the center). In the real universe, this is not the case. All galaxy clusters are moving away from us.
Also, if there were multiple big bangs, then we should be able to see earlier ones.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 05:46 PM)
In a supernova, there will always be a large quantity of matter that is not moving away from you, and it will all be in the same direction and within a certain distance (the matter chasing you away from the center). In the real universe, this is not the case. All galaxy clusters are moving away from us.
Also, if there were multiple big bangs, then we should be able to see earlier ones.
Well, what if the Galaxy clusters were part of the first big bang, and the galaxies themselves were part of a second smaller big bang. Then that won't violate what you just said either.
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
Also, if there were multiple big bangs, then we should be able to see earlier ones.
Well, what if the Galaxy clusters were part of the first big bang, and the galaxies themselves were part of a second smaller big bang. Then that won't violate what you just said either.
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 12:56 PM)
Well, what if the Galaxy clusters were part of the first big bang, and the galaxies themselves were part of a second smaller big bang. Then that won't violate what you just said either.
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
Still, no. If that were true, then galaxy clusters would be expanding, but they aren't. They are like solar systems; orbiting and interacting with each other.
I don't know what your point is, and you're starting to sound crank-ish. What are you trying to say? There is no evidence for multiple big bangs. There is no evidence that requires or suggests that theory. Where are you getting this from? Are you just trying to add competing theories for no apparent reason?
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
Still, no. If that were true, then galaxy clusters would be expanding, but they aren't. They are like solar systems; orbiting and interacting with each other.
I don't know what your point is, and you're starting to sound crank-ish. What are you trying to say? There is no evidence for multiple big bangs. There is no evidence that requires or suggests that theory. Where are you getting this from? Are you just trying to add competing theories for no apparent reason?
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 12:56 PM)
Well, what if the Galaxy clusters were part of the first big bang, and the galaxies themselves were part of a second smaller big bang. Then that won't violate what you just said either.
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
If each galaxy were created by some kind of localized explosion, then the matter in each galaxy should be traveling outward from the center of each explosion. This is not what is observed.
That's the real test of a cosmological theory. Does the theory result in the universe observed today? Multiple Big Bangs would yield a far different place than the universe we see around us.
We are seeing the first ones, given the evidence that galaxies are so much farther apart from each other than the stars are from each other in a galaxy.
If each galaxy were created by some kind of localized explosion, then the matter in each galaxy should be traveling outward from the center of each explosion. This is not what is observed.
That's the real test of a cosmological theory. Does the theory result in the universe observed today? Multiple Big Bangs would yield a far different place than the universe we see around us.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 06:01 PM)
Still, no. If that were true, then galaxy clusters would be expanding, but they aren't. They are like solar systems; orbiting and interacting with each other.
I don't know what your point is, and you're starting to sound crank-ish. What are you trying to say? There is no evidence for multiple big bangs. There is no evidence that requires or suggests that theory. Where are you getting this from? Are you just trying to add competing theories for no apparent reason?
What I'm asking is why does the galaxy clusters have to be expanding? Wouldn't gravity counteract the initial explosive force?
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
I don't know what your point is, and you're starting to sound crank-ish. What are you trying to say? There is no evidence for multiple big bangs. There is no evidence that requires or suggests that theory. Where are you getting this from? Are you just trying to add competing theories for no apparent reason?
What I'm asking is why does the galaxy clusters have to be expanding? Wouldn't gravity counteract the initial explosive force?
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:08 PM)
What I'm asking is why does the galaxy clusters have to be expanding? Wouldn't gravity counteract the initial explosive force?
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
Gravity turns out the be really weak at extreme distances, in case you missed the inverse square law.
There are two possible options:
1) The universe is expanding by the same force that caused the big bang. i.e. The 'balloon' just keeps expanding, taking us with it.
2) There is an unknown force (Dark Energy) that only acts over extremely long distances, and is overriding gravity and pushing the universe apart.
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
Gravity turns out the be really weak at extreme distances, in case you missed the inverse square law.
There are two possible options:
1) The universe is expanding by the same force that caused the big bang. i.e. The 'balloon' just keeps expanding, taking us with it.
2) There is an unknown force (Dark Energy) that only acts over extremely long distances, and is overriding gravity and pushing the universe apart.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 06:14 PM)
Gravity turns out the be really weak at extreme distances, in case you missed the inverse square law.
Still, no. If that were true, then galaxy clusters would be expanding, but they aren't. They are like solar systems; orbiting and interacting with each other.
Ok, those two quotes are conflicting. If the stars are so far apart in a galaxy, then gravity should not be affecting them. But you just said they were orbiting and interacting with each other. So which is it?
QUOTE
Still, no. If that were true, then galaxy clusters would be expanding, but they aren't. They are like solar systems; orbiting and interacting with each other.
Ok, those two quotes are conflicting. If the stars are so far apart in a galaxy, then gravity should not be affecting them. But you just said they were orbiting and interacting with each other. So which is it?
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:21 PM)
Ok, those two quotes are conflicting. If the stars are so far apart in a galaxy, then gravity should not be affecting them. But you just said they were orbiting and interacting with each other. So which is it?
Stars interact with each other, galaxies in the same cluster interact with each other, clusters drift away from other clusters. Only on the largest scale do we see this phenomenon.
Stars interact with each other, galaxies in the same cluster interact with each other, clusters drift away from other clusters. Only on the largest scale do we see this phenomenon.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:08 PM)
What I'm asking is why does the galaxy clusters have to be expanding? Wouldn't gravity counteract the initial explosive force?
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
On the local level, up to superclusters size, gravity does overcome expansion. (about 200 million light years I think). But gravity depends on mass density, and the more space you consider, the lower the mass density is and on scales larger than superclusters, expansion is stronger.
You appear to think that the Big Bang is like any explosion you're familiar with, that is, matter and energy being thrown out into space from a central point. The BB is the expansion of space itself, of all space between all bits of matter. Where there was sufficient gravitational density, matter clumped together, overcoming the spreading apart of space.
I'm not trying to add competing theories, I'm trying to understand why we rule out the other ones. If I shoot a rocket into space, unless it has enough escape velocity, it won't escape earth's gravity.
If a cosmic explosion happened, and the gravity was large enough, would the matter from this explosion keep expanding? No, it should start orbiting around the center.. which is what is true in galaxy clusters.
I am missing something that you guys are taking for granted. Thats why I'm having such an issue with the concept.
On the local level, up to superclusters size, gravity does overcome expansion. (about 200 million light years I think). But gravity depends on mass density, and the more space you consider, the lower the mass density is and on scales larger than superclusters, expansion is stronger.
You appear to think that the Big Bang is like any explosion you're familiar with, that is, matter and energy being thrown out into space from a central point. The BB is the expansion of space itself, of all space between all bits of matter. Where there was sufficient gravitational density, matter clumped together, overcoming the spreading apart of space.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 13 2009, 06:25 PM)
On the local level, up to superclusters size, gravity does overcome expansion. (about 200 million light years I think). But gravity depends on mass density, and the more space you consider, the lower the mass density is and on scales larger than superclusters, expansion is stronger.
You appear to think that the Big Bang is like any explosion you're familiar with, that is, matter and energy being thrown out into space from a central point. The BB is the expansion of space itself, of all space between all bits of matter. Where there was sufficient gravitational density, matter clumped together, overcoming the spreading apart of space.
Ok, now thats what I'm having problems understanding. What was here before the Big Bang? Another words, can you define what could exist before the big bang happened?
Cause lets take a few scenarios. Was it Antimatter? Was it a void? Was it a field of energy? Without understanding what was here before, how can we define the process of creation? What was the medium?
If the big bang was just matter uncompacting itself, like some cosmic Zip file, is that why the speed limit of the universe is C? because light can only travel as fast as the space is expanding because if it traveled faster, it would have left the universe already?
Also, what do you define as space expanding? Is it still happening? Are you saying the volume is increasing? Is this expansion between two galaxies? Between two stars? Between two planets?
If not, why not? If it is only the edge of the universe that is expanding at C, then there would be a lot of space left between the edge of the universe and the end of matter.
If another star was moving away at the speed of C, would we ever see the light from that star? It should never reach us if light traveled only at the speed of C.
You appear to think that the Big Bang is like any explosion you're familiar with, that is, matter and energy being thrown out into space from a central point. The BB is the expansion of space itself, of all space between all bits of matter. Where there was sufficient gravitational density, matter clumped together, overcoming the spreading apart of space.
Ok, now thats what I'm having problems understanding. What was here before the Big Bang? Another words, can you define what could exist before the big bang happened?
Cause lets take a few scenarios. Was it Antimatter? Was it a void? Was it a field of energy? Without understanding what was here before, how can we define the process of creation? What was the medium?
If the big bang was just matter uncompacting itself, like some cosmic Zip file, is that why the speed limit of the universe is C? because light can only travel as fast as the space is expanding because if it traveled faster, it would have left the universe already?
Also, what do you define as space expanding? Is it still happening? Are you saying the volume is increasing? Is this expansion between two galaxies? Between two stars? Between two planets?
If not, why not? If it is only the edge of the universe that is expanding at C, then there would be a lot of space left between the edge of the universe and the end of matter.
If another star was moving away at the speed of C, would we ever see the light from that star? It should never reach us if light traveled only at the speed of C.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:35 PM)
Ok, now thats what I'm having problems understanding. What was here before the Big Bang? Another words, can you define what could exist before the big bang happened?
Cause lets take a few scenarios. Was it Antimatter? Was it a void? Was it a field of energy? Without understanding what was here before, how can we define the process of creation? What was the medium?
If the big bang was just matter uncompacting itself, like some cosmic Zip file, is that why the speed limit of the universe is C? because light can only travel as fast as the space is expanding because if it traveled faster, it would have left the universe already?
There's no conceivable way to know what the universe was like before the big bang. That's one thing that we will probably never know. That is, unless we figure out how to travel to any point in time, which is equally unlikely.
I don't think 'why' is an answerable question when dealing with non-human entities.
Cause lets take a few scenarios. Was it Antimatter? Was it a void? Was it a field of energy? Without understanding what was here before, how can we define the process of creation? What was the medium?
If the big bang was just matter uncompacting itself, like some cosmic Zip file, is that why the speed limit of the universe is C? because light can only travel as fast as the space is expanding because if it traveled faster, it would have left the universe already?
There's no conceivable way to know what the universe was like before the big bang. That's one thing that we will probably never know. That is, unless we figure out how to travel to any point in time, which is equally unlikely.
I don't think 'why' is an answerable question when dealing with non-human entities.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:35 PM)
Ok, now thats what I'm having problems understanding. What was here before the Big Bang? Another words, can you define what could exist before the big bang happened?
Nope.
The BB was the starting point of both space and time (space/time). The term 'before' doesn't have any meaning with respect to the BB. It's not something encompassed by our conceptualizations or by physics.
Nope.
The BB was the starting point of both space and time (space/time). The term 'before' doesn't have any meaning with respect to the BB. It's not something encompassed by our conceptualizations or by physics.
QUOTE
can you define what could exist before the big bang happened?
No.
No one can at this time and anyone who says they can is lying.
The problem is that traditional physics... or any physics that we know of for that matter... breaks down at moment 0, the time where the Big Bang first manifests, often referred to as the Planck Epoch. Generally at this time, it is believed that time and space started at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a lot of controversy about this period, however anything past 10^-11 seconds is fairly well understood.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 13 2009, 06:49 PM)
No.
No one can at this time and anyone who says they can is lying.
The problem is that traditional physics... or any physics that we know of for that matter... breaks down at moment 0, the time where the Big Bang first manifests, often referred to as the Planck Epoch. Generally at this time, it is believed that time and space started at the moment of the Big Bang. There is a lot of controversy about this period, however anything past 10^-11 seconds is fairly well understood.
So are you saying that our theories are based on what we define the beginning of the universe as? The start of all time and space?
So if this was not true, then there could be another explaination?
So far the only evidence we have that the universe is expanding is the redshift right? Is there other evidence?
Do we know if wavelengths of light can change after traveling long distances?(lightyears). We already know Gravity can affect wavelength, can't something else as well?
If there is some mysterious dark energy pulling at the fabric of matter and energy, would it not affect light and other electromagnetic radiation as well?
QUOTE
So far the only evidence we have that the universe is expanding is the redshift right? Is there other evidence?
There is the CMB. It exactly matches what the BB theory predicts it should be.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 13 2009, 07:19 PM)
There is the CMB. It exactly matches what the BB theory predicts it should be.
You know, try as I might, I can't think of anything to explain the CMB the way it is without the Big Bang Theory.
Very good! Thank you all for putting your collective thinking caps upon your heads.
What got me, was if the first early radio telescopes found a resonant leftover echo, from the first said big bang, meaning that this sound would have to have hit a tensor wall, then how does one relate to time in distance, if events change with respects to the resonance supposedly leftover from the big bang?
This was data public ally aired on the listening ear in Virginia, a good while back.
I think, its just a guess, but if the universe is exceptionally large, then how can sound be defined to only one wall of resonance per reflected sound?
I’m not sure..?
Again, thank you all very very much, you acted like scientist for a change.
What got me, was if the first early radio telescopes found a resonant leftover echo, from the first said big bang, meaning that this sound would have to have hit a tensor wall, then how does one relate to time in distance, if events change with respects to the resonance supposedly leftover from the big bang?
This was data public ally aired on the listening ear in Virginia, a good while back.
I think, its just a guess, but if the universe is exceptionally large, then how can sound be defined to only one wall of resonance per reflected sound?
I’m not sure..?
Again, thank you all very very much, you acted like scientist for a change.
Coincidentally, Last night there was a show on the science channel that was talking about time, but it briefly mentioned the big bang theory and even offered a slight modification to the theory based on string theory and the concept of Membranes and extra dimensions.
This was an idea by someone named Neil Turok.
What do you guys think of what he is saying?
The whole concept about multiple dimensional membranes is similar to something I've thought about for describing basic particles. Do you guys think this is a crank idea or is there some validity to what he is saying?
This was an idea by someone named Neil Turok.
What do you guys think of what he is saying?
The whole concept about multiple dimensional membranes is similar to something I've thought about for describing basic particles. Do you guys think this is a crank idea or is there some validity to what he is saying?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.