http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20415284/
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
If hydrogen keeps getting transmuted into heavy elements by stars over time, and no new hydrogen is popping up magically from nowhere (which would violate laws of conservation) -- then clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old.
It clearly had a beginning, when almost all matter consisted of hydrogen. It clearly ages over time, generating more and more heavy elements.
Galaxies far away (in the early universe) look more chaotic and on average are more plentiful and less massive than modern galaxies. Over time, larger galaxies form by smaller ones coalescing together. This process of galactic mergers is observed all over the sky, and is an empirical fact.
With this trend in mind, the universe cannot be infinitely old, as by now there would be no small galaxies left, and all super-galaxies would have long since formed and stabilized their shapes.
Overall, the universe has only so much nuclear fuel; without replenishment it is doomed to burn itself out until not a single star remains. Since the universe is still full of stars (and full of hydrogen), it must still be relatively young.
So, how would the anti-bangers explain any of this??
Next question: what's the alternative?
If hydrogen keeps getting transmuted into heavy elements by stars over time, and no new hydrogen is popping up magically from nowhere (which would violate laws of conservation) -- then clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old.
It clearly had a beginning, when almost all matter consisted of hydrogen. It clearly ages over time, generating more and more heavy elements.
Galaxies far away (in the early universe) look more chaotic and on average are more plentiful and less massive than modern galaxies. Over time, larger galaxies form by smaller ones coalescing together. This process of galactic mergers is observed all over the sky, and is an empirical fact.
With this trend in mind, the universe cannot be infinitely old, as by now there would be no small galaxies left, and all super-galaxies would have long since formed and stabilized their shapes.
Overall, the universe has only so much nuclear fuel; without replenishment it is doomed to burn itself out until not a single star remains. Since the universe is still full of stars (and full of hydrogen), it must still be relatively young.
So, how would the anti-bangers explain any of this??
i dont understand the problem
when has it been said that the big bang theory predicts that no such voids should exist
QUOTE
Voids exist, but they are typically relatively small.
when has it been said that the big bang theory predicts that no such voids should exist
Thats a point .
QUOTE
"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.
Ok, for one thing, this is ridiculous. This measurement is really not even accurate to even ONE significant digit. 6-10? wow, so basicly "8 billion light years +/- 2 billion light years". I mean seriously, go back and measure again because that's pathetic, if you're talking about a range of error that is as much as 66% of the measured value.
this measurement cannot be taken seriously, much like so many other measurements we see in astronomy. The reported range of error is so great that the numbers are completely useless.
Are we to take serioiusly a "measurement" of objects "13 billion light years away" when these blokes cannot even tell whether it is 6 billion, or 10 billion light years to this "hole"? How can anyone take these measurements seriously when even the scientists themself report this degree of error? Its meaningless.
QUOTE (kjw+Aug 28 2007, 05:18 AM)
big bang theory predicts that no such voids should exist
The Universe is the intelligent creature by some postmodernist theories, so it should have some anal orifice. Some others are saying, the Universe is software simulation, so every SW has its security holes. Again, nothing very special is about it.
The Universe is the intelligent creature by some postmodernist theories, so it should have some anal orifice. Some others are saying, the Universe is software simulation, so every SW has its security holes. Again, nothing very special is about it.
If the future of the universe is for it to keep expanding then voids will become the norm. Look at the universe 3 billion years from now.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
That's an intelligent post Nick.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2007, 06:07 PM)
Ok, for one thing, this is ridiculous. This measurement is really not even accurate to even ONE significant digit. 6-10? wow, so basicly "8 billion light years +/- 2 billion light years". I mean seriously, go back and measure again because that's pathetic, if you're talking about a range of error that is as much as 66% of the measured value.
this measurement cannot be taken seriously, much like so many other measurements we see in astronomy. The reported range of error is so great that the numbers are completely useless.
It's a first, fairly rough, measurement. It gives an order of magnitude idea of the distance and size.
brava !
I love it when it starts to get desperate!
You laugh? What are your opinions then?
this measurement cannot be taken seriously, much like so many other measurements we see in astronomy. The reported range of error is so great that the numbers are completely useless.
It's a first, fairly rough, measurement. It gives an order of magnitude idea of the distance and size.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2007, 06:07 PM)
Are we to take serioiusly a "measurement" of objects "13 billion light years away" when these blokes cannot even tell whether it is 6 billion, or 10 billion light years to this "hole"? How can anyone take these measurements seriously when even the scientists themself report this degree of error? Its meaningless.
It's easier to tell the distance to something than the distance to nothing. Quasars give off a hell of a lot of light and that light is detected, measured and analysed. A huge void doesn't give off much light, that's the bloody point! Instead, the galaxies on it's edge have to be measured, which is very difficult. They have to find suitably bright quasars. But they have to make sure that the quasars are actually on the edge of the void and not just alone the edge's line of sight. That involves a great deal of time and effort and the errors involves can be significant even then.
You've a completely biased view towards it and obviously have no appreciation for the amount of effort and work which goes into such results. It's all 'obvious' when you see a colour coded 3 dimensional computer simulation but you don't realise there's 2 or 3 years of effort from 20 people in such a result. Obviously you've never done research in science yourself.
You've a completely biased view towards it and obviously have no appreciation for the amount of effort and work which goes into such results. It's all 'obvious' when you see a colour coded 3 dimensional computer simulation but you don't realise there's 2 or 3 years of effort from 20 people in such a result. Obviously you've never done research in science yourself.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Aug 27 2007, 06:59 PM)
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
If hydrogen keeps getting transmuted into heavy elements by stars over time, and no new hydrogen is popping up magically from nowhere (which would violate laws of conservation) -- then clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old.
It clearly had a beginning, when almost all matter consisted of hydrogen. It clearly ages over time, generating more and more heavy elements.
Galaxies far away (in the early universe) look more chaotic and on average are more plentiful and less massive than modern galaxies. Over time, larger galaxies form by smaller ones coalescing together. This process of galactic mergers is observed all over the sky, and is an empirical fact.
With this trend in mind, the universe cannot be infinitely old, as by now there would be no small galaxies left, and all super-galaxies would have long since formed and stabilized their shapes.
Overall, the universe has only so much nuclear fuel; without replenishment it is doomed to burn itself out until not a single star remains. Since the universe is still full of stars (and full of hydrogen), it must still be relatively young.
So, how would the anti-bangers explain any of this??
I agree. The universe can not be "solid-state", "eternal", or otherwise "infinite". Your examples are a good select few. There are more too, such as:
1.) Older galaxies do not typically have as much interstellar dust (nebulae, molecular hydrogen clouds, etc) as it has mostly been gobbled up by stars.
2.) Active Galactic Nuclei appear in younger galaxies because the suppermassive black holes in the center have not yet swallowed all surrounding stars/matter in their respective ranges of gravitational influence (and when I say "younger", I mean those which are farther away, and as such, are represented by light which has traveled farther and thus portray them the way they were some billions of years previous).
---
In either of the above cases, if the universe was eternal, than an infinite period of time would have already elapsed by now, and all galaxies would be the same age: infinite. There would be no such thing as a young or old galaxy.
---
3.) If the universe was actually infinite, all stellar activity would have long since ceased, and all stars would have already exhausted their fuels, died, turned to white-dwarfs / neutron-stars / black-holes, and (in the case of a white-dwarf) cooled to black-dwarfs by now.
4.) Entropy in systems is always increasing. All matter would have already decayed into radiation by this time. See Heat Death of the Universe, which is one of the predominant theories on the end of the Universe's timeline.
Next question: what's the alternative?
If hydrogen keeps getting transmuted into heavy elements by stars over time, and no new hydrogen is popping up magically from nowhere (which would violate laws of conservation) -- then clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old.
It clearly had a beginning, when almost all matter consisted of hydrogen. It clearly ages over time, generating more and more heavy elements.
Galaxies far away (in the early universe) look more chaotic and on average are more plentiful and less massive than modern galaxies. Over time, larger galaxies form by smaller ones coalescing together. This process of galactic mergers is observed all over the sky, and is an empirical fact.
With this trend in mind, the universe cannot be infinitely old, as by now there would be no small galaxies left, and all super-galaxies would have long since formed and stabilized their shapes.
Overall, the universe has only so much nuclear fuel; without replenishment it is doomed to burn itself out until not a single star remains. Since the universe is still full of stars (and full of hydrogen), it must still be relatively young.
So, how would the anti-bangers explain any of this??
I agree. The universe can not be "solid-state", "eternal", or otherwise "infinite". Your examples are a good select few. There are more too, such as:
1.) Older galaxies do not typically have as much interstellar dust (nebulae, molecular hydrogen clouds, etc) as it has mostly been gobbled up by stars.
2.) Active Galactic Nuclei appear in younger galaxies because the suppermassive black holes in the center have not yet swallowed all surrounding stars/matter in their respective ranges of gravitational influence (and when I say "younger", I mean those which are farther away, and as such, are represented by light which has traveled farther and thus portray them the way they were some billions of years previous).
---
In either of the above cases, if the universe was eternal, than an infinite period of time would have already elapsed by now, and all galaxies would be the same age: infinite. There would be no such thing as a young or old galaxy.
---
3.) If the universe was actually infinite, all stellar activity would have long since ceased, and all stars would have already exhausted their fuels, died, turned to white-dwarfs / neutron-stars / black-holes, and (in the case of a white-dwarf) cooled to black-dwarfs by now.
4.) Entropy in systems is always increasing. All matter would have already decayed into radiation by this time. See Heat Death of the Universe, which is one of the predominant theories on the end of the Universe's timeline.
QUOTE
Nick Posted on Today at 4:32 AM If the future of the universe is for it to keep expanding then voids will become the norm. Look at the universe 3 billion years from now.
brava !
Nowhere did I argue for an "infinite universe", in fact I also argue against an infinite universe.
Pink Elephant wrote;
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
The Cosmic Segmentation instead of the Cosmic Inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic segmentation is a new idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential segmentation and extension that was driven by a separation force of the light emission energy. As a direct consequence of this segmentation, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Segmentation may answer the classic questions of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe. Segmentation may also explain the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos like voids and walls.
Segmentation has stopped when the potential of the separation field became so weak that no more "cell membranes" could be made. In these "cell membranes", there are galaxies and stars, in other word, matters.
And I wrote here;
http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html
My prediction is "the discovery of the separation force concave lens".
Voids as fossilized huge emission energy still have the separation potential and act as concave lens against the light from the backwards of them.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
The Cosmic Segmentation instead of the Cosmic Inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic segmentation is a new idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential segmentation and extension that was driven by a separation force of the light emission energy. As a direct consequence of this segmentation, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Segmentation may answer the classic questions of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe. Segmentation may also explain the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos like voids and walls.
Segmentation has stopped when the potential of the separation field became so weak that no more "cell membranes" could be made. In these "cell membranes", there are galaxies and stars, in other word, matters.
And I wrote here;
http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html
My prediction is "the discovery of the separation force concave lens".
Voids as fossilized huge emission energy still have the separation potential and act as concave lens against the light from the backwards of them.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
QUOTE (Iori Fujita+Aug 28 2007, 04:43 PM)
Pink Elephant wrote;
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
The Cosmic Segmentation instead of the Cosmic Inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic segmentation is a new idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential segmentation and extension that was driven by a separation force of the light emission energy. As a direct consequence of this segmentation, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Segmentation may answer the classic questions of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe. Segmentation may also explain the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos like voids and walls.
Segmentation has stopped when the potential of the separation field became so weak that no more "cell membranes" could be made. In these "cell membranes", there are galaxies and stars, in other word, matters.
And I wrote here;
http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html
My prediction is "the discovery of the separation force concave lens".
Voids as fossilized huge emission energy still have the separation potential and act as concave lens against the light from the backwards of them.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
That doesn't solve any fundamental issues in physics or philosphy, it is just another form of regression.
Implied in the thread's description, is an assumption that the Big Bang is wrong.
Next question: what's the alternative?
The Cosmic Segmentation instead of the Cosmic Inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic segmentation is a new idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential segmentation and extension that was driven by a separation force of the light emission energy. As a direct consequence of this segmentation, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Segmentation may answer the classic questions of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe. Segmentation may also explain the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos like voids and walls.
Segmentation has stopped when the potential of the separation field became so weak that no more "cell membranes" could be made. In these "cell membranes", there are galaxies and stars, in other word, matters.
And I wrote here;
http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html
My prediction is "the discovery of the separation force concave lens".
Voids as fossilized huge emission energy still have the separation potential and act as concave lens against the light from the backwards of them.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
That doesn't solve any fundamental issues in physics or philosphy, it is just another form of regression.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Aug 28 2007, 08:30 PM)
I agree. The universe can not be "solid-state", "eternal", or otherwise "infinite". Your examples are a good select few. There are more too, such as:
1.) Older galaxies do not typically have as much interstellar dust (nebulae, molecular hydrogen clouds, etc) as it has mostly been gobbled up by stars.
2.) Active Galactic Nuclei appear in younger galaxies because the suppermassive black holes in the center have not yet swallowed all surrounding stars/matter in their respective ranges of gravitational influence (and when I say "younger", I mean those which are farther away, and as such, are represented by light which has traveled farther and thus portray them the way they were some billions of years previous).
---
In either of the above cases, if the universe was eternal, than an infinite period of time would have already elapsed by now, and all galaxies would be the same age: infinite. There would be no such thing as a young or old galaxy.
---
3.) If the universe was actually infinite, all stellar activity would have long since ceased, and all stars would have already exhausted their fuels, died, turned to white-dwarfs / neutron-stars / black-holes, and (in the case of a white-dwarf) cooled to black-dwarfs by now.
4.) Entropy in systems is always increasing. All matter would have already decayed into radiation by this time. See Heat Death of the Universe, which is one of the predominant theories on the end of the Universe's timeline.
I love it when it starts to get desperate!
1.) Older galaxies do not typically have as much interstellar dust (nebulae, molecular hydrogen clouds, etc) as it has mostly been gobbled up by stars.
2.) Active Galactic Nuclei appear in younger galaxies because the suppermassive black holes in the center have not yet swallowed all surrounding stars/matter in their respective ranges of gravitational influence (and when I say "younger", I mean those which are farther away, and as such, are represented by light which has traveled farther and thus portray them the way they were some billions of years previous).
---
In either of the above cases, if the universe was eternal, than an infinite period of time would have already elapsed by now, and all galaxies would be the same age: infinite. There would be no such thing as a young or old galaxy.
---
3.) If the universe was actually infinite, all stellar activity would have long since ceased, and all stars would have already exhausted their fuels, died, turned to white-dwarfs / neutron-stars / black-holes, and (in the case of a white-dwarf) cooled to black-dwarfs by now.
4.) Entropy in systems is always increasing. All matter would have already decayed into radiation by this time. See Heat Death of the Universe, which is one of the predominant theories on the end of the Universe's timeline.
I love it when it starts to get desperate!
QUOTE (non-finite fred+Aug 28 2007, 05:28 PM)
I love it when it starts to get desperate!
You laugh? What are your opinions then?
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Aug 29 2007, 01:45 PM)
You laugh? What are your opinions then?
I don't have opinions, I just laugh.
I don't have opinions, I just laugh.
Big-Bangers? Err.., who are the others here? 
so one vote for butthole....and one for a natural result of expansion....
im with Nick...expansion....
cuz if it were a butthole...it would be full....
sometimes......
so.....we dont know what the hole is? it has no radio waves......no matter.....
where is the hole?
by the way.....talking about locations.....do you guys know our location in the universe? ive been trying to google an image of the known universe....very difficult...my favorite looks like a bow tie structure...like a friction spark or a collision......do you guys know the one im talking about?
is that what the universe is shaped like? what is the structure?
and where's that hole?
cuz the location depends on my vote...
im with Nick...expansion....
cuz if it were a butthole...it would be full....
sometimes......so.....we dont know what the hole is? it has no radio waves......no matter.....
where is the hole?
by the way.....talking about locations.....do you guys know our location in the universe? ive been trying to google an image of the known universe....very difficult...my favorite looks like a bow tie structure...like a friction spark or a collision......do you guys know the one im talking about?
is that what the universe is shaped like? what is the structure?
and where's that hole?
cuz the location depends on my vote...
QUOTE (fred-u-like+Aug 30 2007, 05:58 PM)
I don't have opinions, I just laugh.
Do you feel that the information in my post is incorrect or otherwise "desperate" according to the wording you used in your previous comment? If you do, I'd appreciate an explanation and, of course, your rebuttal. I'm not sure how it could be considered "desperate", since it was the first time I made a comment in this topic.
It's usually not possible to disagree with something and have absolutely no reason for doing so.... I mean, do you at least have a gut feeling reason for disagreeing?
Do you feel that the information in my post is incorrect or otherwise "desperate" according to the wording you used in your previous comment? If you do, I'd appreciate an explanation and, of course, your rebuttal. I'm not sure how it could be considered "desperate", since it was the first time I made a comment in this topic.
It's usually not possible to disagree with something and have absolutely no reason for doing so.... I mean, do you at least have a gut feeling reason for disagreeing?
It's all hilarious, but this...
...just classic!
I love the way you believe you know what 'actually infinite' might mean! - Why would you even bother to 'speculate' with an 'if'? As 'if' Truth can be argued with!!!!!!
Laugh, Lat. It may be another 14bn years before you get another chance!
P.S. Hey, you forgot the green giants!
QUOTE
If the universe was actually infinite, all stellar activity would have long since ceased, and all stars would have already exhausted their fuels, died, turned to white-dwarfs / neutron-stars / black-holes, and (in the case of a white-dwarf) cooled to black-dwarfs by now.
...just classic!
I love the way you believe you know what 'actually infinite' might mean! - Why would you even bother to 'speculate' with an 'if'? As 'if' Truth can be argued with!!!!!!
Laugh, Lat. It may be another 14bn years before you get another chance!
P.S. Hey, you forgot the green giants!
QUOTE (fred christ+Sep 1 2007, 06:34 PM)
It's all hilarious, but this...
...just classic!
I love the way you believe you know what 'actually infinite' might mean! - Why would you even bother to 'speculate' with an 'if'? As 'if' Truth can be argued with!!!!!!
Laugh, Lat. It may be another 14bn years before you get another chance!
P.S. Hey, you forgot the green giants!
What??? :/
...just classic!
I love the way you believe you know what 'actually infinite' might mean! - Why would you even bother to 'speculate' with an 'if'? As 'if' Truth can be argued with!!!!!!
Laugh, Lat. It may be another 14bn years before you get another chance!
P.S. Hey, you forgot the green giants!
What??? :/
I love it when it starts to get even more desperate!
QUOTE (notgorf+Sep 3 2007, 06:58 PM)
I love it when it starts to get even more desperate!
I just don't understand you. Speak in complete sentences. For instance, explain why, exactly do you think I'm "desperate"?
If anything, it seems you are desperate yourself, trying to deflect the fact that you've posted nothing of substance and can hardly write a cohesive thought.
No offense, of course.
I just don't understand you. Speak in complete sentences. For instance, explain why, exactly do you think I'm "desperate"?
If anything, it seems you are desperate yourself, trying to deflect the fact that you've posted nothing of substance and can hardly write a cohesive thought.
No offense, of course.
A sense of humour is a sign of intelligence. Laughing is healthy. I'd like to thank you for adding at least 10 years to my life with your posts!
[FONT=Courier][SIZE=7]
Ok, I know I am very late in getting into this discussion and am not sure if anyone is even still reading this string. But was I was thinking after reading about this “Hole” is that maybe what we are looking at is actually the center of the universe itself. If in fact the universe was created by the “Big Bang” and the entire universe’s mass was expelled from that, then there had to certainly be enough matter in a small area before the Big Bang to cause it to collapse in on itself creating the largest black hole imaginable. This I would imagine would happen like that of a star going super nova and shed it’s outer layer of matter into what is now known as the universe. Then using the idea of how galaxies are formed by enough matter in the center of them to collapse and form a very large black hole in the center compressing matter around them into stars, as for the big bang this very large amount of energy that was released would case the expelled matter to compress into (in comparison) small black holes, which in turn would compress the matter around them forming stars and the first galaxies. The Gigantic black hole formed by the Big Bang would then consume any remaining matter around it leaving what would appear to be from our perspective a very large empty spot in our universe.
But of course I am most likely WAY OFF.
Ok, I know I am very late in getting into this discussion and am not sure if anyone is even still reading this string. But was I was thinking after reading about this “Hole” is that maybe what we are looking at is actually the center of the universe itself. If in fact the universe was created by the “Big Bang” and the entire universe’s mass was expelled from that, then there had to certainly be enough matter in a small area before the Big Bang to cause it to collapse in on itself creating the largest black hole imaginable. This I would imagine would happen like that of a star going super nova and shed it’s outer layer of matter into what is now known as the universe. Then using the idea of how galaxies are formed by enough matter in the center of them to collapse and form a very large black hole in the center compressing matter around them into stars, as for the big bang this very large amount of energy that was released would case the expelled matter to compress into (in comparison) small black holes, which in turn would compress the matter around them forming stars and the first galaxies. The Gigantic black hole formed by the Big Bang would then consume any remaining matter around it leaving what would appear to be from our perspective a very large empty spot in our universe.
But of course I am most likely WAY OFF.
QUOTE (OneMan+Sep 9 2007, 08:49 AM)
Ok, I know I am very late in getting into this discussion and am not sure if anyone is even still reading this string. But was I was thinking after reading about this “Hole” is that maybe what we are looking at is actually the center of the universe itself. If in fact the universe was created by the “Big Bang” and the entire universe’s mass was expelled from that, then there had to certainly be enough matter in a small area before the Big Bang to cause it to collapse in on itself creating the largest black hole imaginable. This I would imagine would happen like that of a star going super nova and shed it’s outer layer of matter into what is now known as the universe. Then using the idea of how galaxies are formed by enough matter in the center of them to collapse and form a very large black hole in the center compressing matter around them into stars, as for the big bang this very large amount of energy that was released would case the expelled matter to compress into (in comparison) small black holes, which in turn would compress the matter around them forming stars and the first galaxies. The Gigantic black hole formed by the Big Bang would then consume any remaining matter around it leaving what would appear to be from our perspective a very large empty spot in our universe.
But of course I am most likely WAY OFF.
such a large black hole would have noticeable gravitational effect on passing light, creating a lensing effect.
In this case, i don't think its a black whole.
But of course I am most likely WAY OFF.
such a large black hole would have noticeable gravitational effect on passing light, creating a lensing effect.
In this case, i don't think its a black whole.
Oneman sounds reasonable.But the hole in the Universe is not very convincing.We need more on it from responsible scientists.
QUOTE (fish fishy fish fshh...+Sep 6 2007, 05:07 PM)
A sense of humour is a sign of intelligence. Laughing is healthy. I'd like to thank you for adding at least 10 years to my life with your posts!
Maybe you could point out the part you think is funny.
Maybe you could point out the part you think is funny.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Sep 12 2007, 02:45 PM)
Maybe you could point out the part you think is funny.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Sep 12 2007, 02:45 PM)
Maybe you could point out the part you think is funny.
...maybe I already have, and you missed it?!
...maybe I already have, and you missed it?!
I just want to laugh with you. If I knew what exactly was funny, I could then do that.
why are you two fighting?
anyway...the hole....it's not a black hole silly.....
you guys are silly
in a not funny way...
shows that you geeks, no offense, sure like to type and comment but you guys dont do your homework.....fifth grade stuff here...
ok...the holes have no waves, isnt that what it said? no radio waves....nada....
that's the hole....
duh....
anyone know the location of these "holes"
there's one big one we just found but they say there are more?
in relation to earth, where is this or these holes? anyone know? and how are they shaped?
anyway...the hole....it's not a black hole silly.....
you guys are silly
in a not funny way...shows that you geeks, no offense, sure like to type and comment but you guys dont do your homework.....fifth grade stuff here...
ok...the holes have no waves, isnt that what it said? no radio waves....nada....
that's the hole....
duh....
anyone know the location of these "holes"
there's one big one we just found but they say there are more?
in relation to earth, where is this or these holes? anyone know? and how are they shaped?
guys......what is going on here? who started this thread? i forgot...but member what it was called? Big bangers explain this......
this is kinda big......
but nobody wants to comment....not really.....you guys get sidetracked arguing about being desparate......
desparate.....
desparate means afraid.....
fear.....
you guys were supposed to enlighten me!!!
i came here to download your info.....
and offer.....uh...... ....in return i offer my info.... 
i got info too ok?
but really......you guys suck for not guessing on the holes.....im talking to all of you....
all you regulars....
you know who you are....
this is kinda big......
but nobody wants to comment....not really.....you guys get sidetracked arguing about being desparate......
desparate.....
desparate means afraid.....
fear.....
you guys were supposed to enlighten me!!!
i came here to download your info.....
and offer.....uh......
....in return i offer my info.... i got info too ok?but really......you guys suck for not guessing on the holes.....im talking to all of you....
all you regulars....
you know who you are....
Empty space, nothing to explain i already have
What holds the sun apart?
empty space
What holds the sun apart?
empty space
Things are far from desperate. Most probably we will need some more reasonable conceptual grounds for this hole to fit in. One of the possibilities is that so called energy is just a concept and therefore we have interplay of matter, anti-matter which are inherently dynamic and they are balanced out more or less constantly. Dynamics is movement-speed which is a constant. There is a sub-concept of dynamics which might have nothing to do with reality but it says that there is only one real speed. Therefore you would have "warping" of both opposite masses when talking in lets say speed of light. But if one jumps over this sub-concept we have annihilation of large scale and small scale proportions and of course collisions which produce new particle pairs. The gargantuan hole might be large scale mass annihilation. And there are of course millions of other explanations.
I'm just trying to see if this guy actually has a clue, or if he's just being obstinate.
OldWoman, the reason the holes are strange, is because the universe is supposed to be relatively homogeneous, meaning there should be an even spreading of stars, dust, matter, etc everywhere.
This would be true if the universe was formed in a big-bang model, but it would also likely be true if it was solid-state as well.
OldWoman, the reason the holes are strange, is because the universe is supposed to be relatively homogeneous, meaning there should be an even spreading of stars, dust, matter, etc everywhere.
This would be true if the universe was formed in a big-bang model, but it would also likely be true if it was solid-state as well.
I feel that when this is a colossal explosion, that there is a vacuum lift behind.
The Russians and their new super-powerful conventional explosive, have shown this fact, in a weird sort of show and tell open lab experiment.
So what this void may be, is a post creational center of a colossal explosion, that had pushed off so much matter, that a nothing was left in the creational spot.*Im not sure of the nature of what's in the void?
The Russians and their new super-powerful conventional explosive, have shown this fact, in a weird sort of show and tell open lab experiment.
So what this void may be, is a post creational center of a colossal explosion, that had pushed off so much matter, that a nothing was left in the creational spot.*Im not sure of the nature of what's in the void?
You would probably need to do a large map study to determine if it is not an active or Hyper-active Lagrange point......
Obviously the Background medium of EMR travel is removable, Black Holes demonstrate that. Here, in this case, is is being stretched exceedingly thin, almost to gone.....That infers that it is a point wherein Gravity has been active emptying space of it's energetic medium of energy travel.
Obviously the Background medium of EMR travel is removable, Black Holes demonstrate that. Here, in this case, is is being stretched exceedingly thin, almost to gone.....That infers that it is a point wherein Gravity has been active emptying space of it's energetic medium of energy travel.
For others: points on image curves where the tangent to the curve at each point is at about ... one line for every pair of points, or no lines at all and a hyperactive
www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daf/book/chapter-21.pdf
>Edit; From what I'm getting, is that there is nothing at all within this space.Its devoid and empty of anything.
From what I also hear, its super-cold, so there would be a structure of stillness within this space.
In the mythical, maybe this would be supposed as Hell, or a null space?
*What you would be after, is the drop of oil analogy on the surface of water, which drives surface tension.
So is there data, please, which reflects that this void is active?
I am sure that according to string contgulaity regarding to supposed empty space, there would at least be some particle structure incurrent within?
www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daf/book/chapter-21.pdf
>Edit; From what I'm getting, is that there is nothing at all within this space.Its devoid and empty of anything.
From what I also hear, its super-cold, so there would be a structure of stillness within this space.
In the mythical, maybe this would be supposed as Hell, or a null space?
*What you would be after, is the drop of oil analogy on the surface of water, which drives surface tension.
So is there data, please, which reflects that this void is active?
I am sure that according to string contgulaity regarding to supposed empty space, there would at least be some particle structure incurrent within?
how can there be clouds of hydrogen between us and Andromeda if the big bang is true?
the Sidewalk Astrologer said that....
seems like a pretty smart old man.......
and then he said something about changing the physics to fit the theory instead of changing the theory to fit the physics.......is that what you guys do?
huh?
ok....and the most interesting thing he claimed is that "everything is recycled at the boundary"
he means the boundary of the universe.......i KNEW it had some type of boundary.....
anyway......i dont get it...recycled at the boundary? how?
what do you guys think?
the Sidewalk Astrologer said that....
seems like a pretty smart old man.......
and then he said something about changing the physics to fit the theory instead of changing the theory to fit the physics.......is that what you guys do?
huh?
ok....and the most interesting thing he claimed is that "everything is recycled at the boundary"
he means the boundary of the universe.......i KNEW it had some type of boundary.....
anyway......i dont get it...recycled at the boundary? how?
what do you guys think?
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
how can there be clouds of hydrogen between us and Andromeda if the big bang is true? the Sidewalk Astrologer said that....seems like a pretty smart old man.......
Actually, demonstrating an absence of knowledge of just what Big Bang theory tells....
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
and then he said something about changing the physics to fit the theory instead of changing the theory to fit the physics.......is that what you guys do?
That is actually a hilarious statement as you cannot change the physics. Does that answer the question?
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
huh?
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
ok....and the most interesting thing he claimed is that "everything is recycled at the boundary"
and the proof he offered you is.......?? (none!)
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
he means the boundary of the universe.......i KNEW it had some type of boundary.....
Yes, (I) have once before tried to explain that to you. Guess it got lost in the Ensuing time...?
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
anyway......i dont get it...recycled at the boundary? how?
Go ask the Astrology Man, as it is, clearly, his new theory......
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 24 2007, 07:24 PM)
what do you guys think?
Apparently (according to current theory) we think about 'sex' ......all to often. 
mr parsons...i dont quite get your drift.....
uh......proof?
proof
thats funny........mr funny guy
but ok...whatever....
pardon me sir...but that was bullcaca reply you gave me there mr mayor
uh......proof?
proof
thats funny........mr funny guy
but ok...whatever....
pardon me sir...but that was bullcaca reply you gave me there mr mayor
Two trolls making nice.
troll is as troll does
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 25 2007, 06:13 PM)
troll is as troll does
Well, look at my warn level versus yours, OldQueen. May I have a negative from you, too? Actually, your rebuff of Mr. cRAckers was pretty amusing, but I did my research before making accusations.
Well, look at my warn level versus yours, OldQueen. May I have a negative from you, too? Actually, your rebuff of Mr. cRAckers was pretty amusing, but I did my research before making accusations.
QUOTE (Sapo+Sep 25 2007, 04:27 PM)
Well, look at my warn level versus yours, OldQueen. May I have a negative from you, too? Actually, your rebuff of Mr. cRAckers was pretty amusing, but I did my research before making accusations.
for your information sonnyboy....im not known for making negative comments.....
ive made very few....and usually, theyre not mean, they are funny and sarcastic...
like.....
Sapo is gay.....
but yea....look at my warning....go on....do your research too....go ahead....
if you did your research on me...i dont understand why youre talkin mess.....
quote me.....put up a quote that is worthy of my warning status....
everything ive ever said is under my name....go on..check it out...
for your information sonnyboy....im not known for making negative comments.....
ive made very few....and usually, theyre not mean, they are funny and sarcastic...
like.....
Sapo is gay.....
but yea....look at my warning....go on....do your research too....go ahead....
if you did your research on me...i dont understand why youre talkin mess.....
quote me.....put up a quote that is worthy of my warning status....
everything ive ever said is under my name....go on..check it out...
Err..., Little Bangers? 
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 26 2007, 06:10 PM)
for your information sonnyboy....im not known for making negative comments.....
ive made very few....and usually, theyre not mean, they are funny and sarcastic...
like.....
Sapo is gay.....
but yea....look at my warning....go on....do your research too....go ahead....
if you did your research on me...i dont understand why youre talkin mess.....
quote me.....put up a quote that is worthy of my warning status....
everything ive ever said is under my name....go on..check it out...
Sorry, OldWoman1904, I was punchy. I'll try very hard not to be unnecessarily rude.
Forgive me?
ive made very few....and usually, theyre not mean, they are funny and sarcastic...
like.....
Sapo is gay.....
but yea....look at my warning....go on....do your research too....go ahead....
if you did your research on me...i dont understand why youre talkin mess.....
quote me.....put up a quote that is worthy of my warning status....
everything ive ever said is under my name....go on..check it out...
Sorry, OldWoman1904, I was punchy. I'll try very hard not to be unnecessarily rude.
Forgive me?
There are other wavelengths. That dumb hole is full of stuff.
Err..., Anyway, if they ever find molecular signatures of pus around the hole, I'd say god has piles!
QUOTE (Sapo+Sep 26 2007, 05:11 PM)
Sorry, OldWoman1904, I was punchy. I'll try very hard not to be unnecessarily rude.
Forgive me?
sapo....no need to apologize silly.....i aint mad at ya....never was...i was punchy too....were punchy people
Forgive me?
sapo....no need to apologize silly.....i aint mad at ya....never was...i was punchy too....were punchy people
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Sep 29 2007, 10:28 PM)
sapo....no need to apologize silly.....i aint mad at ya....never was...i was punchy too....were punchy people
Awwwwww... How sweet.
No, really - usually people here just get ruder and ruder as they argue - it's nice to see some manners on these forums for once. Of course, I'm not exactly the best role model myself....
Awwwwww... How sweet.
No, really - usually people here just get ruder and ruder as they argue - it's nice to see some manners on these forums for once. Of course, I'm not exactly the best role model myself...
.
OLZDWOMAN through a punch?
Did I miss it?
MItch
Did I miss it?
MItch
It seems there are clues about what this giant hole could be.
http://www.physorg.com/news112541069.html
http://www.physorg.com/news112541069.html
QUOTE (Sapo+Sep 26 2007, 12:27 AM)
Well, look at my warn level versus yours, OldQueen. May I have a negative from you, too? Actually, your rebuff of Mr. cRAckers was pretty amusing, but I did my research before making accusations.
You had a warn level of 100% as fivedoughnut so because you have started again under a new alias, nothing to boast about.
You had a warn level of 100% as fivedoughnut so because you have started again under a new alias, nothing to boast about.
QUOTE (Majkl+Oct 28 2007, 12:17 AM)
It seems there are clues about what this giant hole could be.
http://www.physorg.com/news112541069.html
Amazing. The BB idiots want it both ways. They invented "inflation" so everything is smooth and now that they have found that it is not, that there are cold and hot spots, this too is said to be down to the big bang.
http://www.physorg.com/news112541069.html
Amazing. The BB idiots want it both ways. They invented "inflation" so everything is smooth and now that they have found that it is not, that there are cold and hot spots, this too is said to be down to the big bang.
Again with the 'Symmetry' - Noether's originating postulation for symmetry is flawed as it is based upon the predication (assumption) of Perfect translation through space, and that assumption-predication - we know - is invalid.
The only idiots are thos prognosticating over something they in fact know nothing about.
Personally, I never quite understood why anybody was surprised at this find.
The Universe is on average Isotropic
We know that the visible universe is arranged in structures like walls and stuff, and there's that thing that the SDSS found, I think it was like a giant wall of Galaxies or something, so why shouldn't there be a big hole with little in it.
Personally, I never quite understood why anybody was surprised at this find.
The Universe is on average Isotropic
We know that the visible universe is arranged in structures like walls and stuff, and there's that thing that the SDSS found, I think it was like a giant wall of Galaxies or something, so why shouldn't there be a big hole with little in it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 02:16 PM)
The only idiots are thos prognosticating over something they in fact know nothing about.
Personally, I never quite understood why anybody was surprised at this find. The Universe is on average Isotropic We know that the visible universe is arranged in structures like walls and stuff, and there's that thing that the SDSS found, I think it was like a giant wall of Galaxies or something, so why shouldn't there be a big hole with little in it.
The great attractor...know anything about it?
Personally, I never quite understood why anybody was surprised at this find. The Universe is on average Isotropic We know that the visible universe is arranged in structures like walls and stuff, and there's that thing that the SDSS found, I think it was like a giant wall of Galaxies or something, so why shouldn't there be a big hole with little in it.
The great attractor...know anything about it?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 07:30 AM)
The great attractor...know anything about it?
The Sloan Great Wall has nothing to do with te Great Attractor.
The Sloan Great Wall has nothing to do with te Great Attractor.
this hole in space is it far away from us
Or is it touching us as we speak?
I say that if there is no microwave or any wave in this hole or holes then the hole if we can view it using microwaves to see the hole.
We must be in the hole or part of the hole.
If there are no waves in between us and the hole in space then we must be touching the hole in space.
the hole in space is the path that the earth travels in it's orbit around the sun.
sorry but i am going to say it again, polar revolution is so fast that it leaves a hole in space were there would be no microwaves or any kind of wave at all.
If we count the holes in space with no waves in it then maybe we could tell how many times the the earth polar revolves each revolution around the sun.
z = holes in space R = (1) revolution around the sun
p = polar revolutions/revolutions
(z / R = p) p is greater than the speed of light
I know yall are going to like this one!!!!!
Or is it touching us as we speak?
I say that if there is no microwave or any wave in this hole or holes then the hole if we can view it using microwaves to see the hole.
We must be in the hole or part of the hole.
If there are no waves in between us and the hole in space then we must be touching the hole in space.
the hole in space is the path that the earth travels in it's orbit around the sun.
sorry but i am going to say it again, polar revolution is so fast that it leaves a hole in space were there would be no microwaves or any kind of wave at all.
If we count the holes in space with no waves in it then maybe we could tell how many times the the earth polar revolves each revolution around the sun.
z = holes in space R = (1) revolution around the sun
p = polar revolutions/revolutions
(z / R = p) p is greater than the speed of light
I know yall are going to like this one!!!!!
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
this hole in space is it far away from us
More than a billion light years.
More than a billion light years.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
Or is it touching us as we speak?
No.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
I say that if there is no microwave or any wave in this hole or holes then the hole if we can view it using microwaves to see the hole.
There is light and matter in the region, just less matter than usual. It's not a perfect void.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
the hole in space is the path that the earth travels in it's orbit around the sun.
No, it's got nothing to do with Earth and our Sun.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
If we count the holes in space with no waves in it then maybe we could tell how many times the the earth polar revolves each revolution around the sun.
No, it won't tell us that.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
(z / R = p) p is greater than the speed of
Wow, you've made up some random, incorrect, formula about something you know nothing about.
QUOTE (landon+Nov 18 2007, 10:53 AM)
I know yall are going to like this one!!!!!
I like how it demonstrates what an idiot you are.
Hello All
Voids are very common
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000614.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000615.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000615.html
Dark circular voids just above and below the galaxy center, each about half the size of our own Milky Way Galaxy, are believed to be magnetic bubbles of energetic particles blown by the accreting black hole
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070827.html
Southern Local Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Local_Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_Supervoid
Southern Local Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Local_Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_Supervoid
Although voids like this are known in the universe, this void is an unusually large supervoid, perhaps 1000 times larger than expected typical voids. This void is somewhere between 6-10 billion lightyears away and nearly one billion lightyears across.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Local_Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void
The Boötes void is a tremendously large, approximately spherically shaped nearly-empty region of space, devoid of galaxies. At nearly 250 million light-years in diameter, it is one of the largest known voids, and is referred to as a supervoid.
Voids are very common
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000614.html
QUOTE
What can 100,000 galaxies tell you? Perhaps the structure and composition of the universe. Astronomers using the Two Degree Field (2dF) spectrograph on the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) in Australia have now measured the redshifts of over 100,000 galaxies in a thin ribbon of the sky. The results show how galaxies are scattered in the universe out to 4 billion light years. Huge clusters, long filaments, and empty voids measuring over 100 million light years across are visible in the resulting 2dF map, pictured above. The map is interesting not only for what it shows but also for what it does not show. It does not show even larger structures that would be expected were the universe filled to critical density with normal matter. These results do not contradict recent evidence that most of the universe is made of some type of unusual dark energy, however.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000615.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What can 100,000 galaxies tell you? Perhaps the structure and composition of the universe. Astronomers using the Two Degree Field (2dF) spectrograph on the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) in Australia have now measured the redshifts of over 100,000 galaxies in a thin ribbon of the sky. The results show how galaxies are scattered in the universe out to 4 billion light years. Huge clusters, long filaments, and empty voids measuring over 100 million light years across are visible in the resulting 2dF map, pictured above. The map is interesting not only for what it shows but also for what it does not show. It does not show even larger structures that would be expected were the universe filled to critical density with normal matter. These results do not contradict recent evidence that most of the universe is made of some type of unusual dark energy, however. |
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000615.html
Dark circular voids just above and below the galaxy center, each about half the size of our own Milky Way Galaxy, are believed to be magnetic bubbles of energetic particles blown by the accreting black hole
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070827.html
QUOTE
What has created this huge empty volume in the universe? No one is yet sure, and even the extent of the estimated billion-light year void is being researched. The void is not a hole in space like a black hole, but rather a vast region of the universe that appears to be mostly devoid of normal matter and even dark matter. The void is still thought to contain dark energy, though, and is clearly traversable by light. The void's existence is being postulated following scientific curiosity about how unusually cold spots came to appear on WMAP's map of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. One possibility was that this CMB region was not actually very cold but light from the spot somehow became more cosmologically redshifted than normal along the way. Other voids in the universe are known to exist, but this void appears to have an unusually large gravitational effect, and so might possibly be the largest in our entire visible universe. Investigating this, a recent study found an unusually low number of cosmic radio sources between Earth and the CMB cold spot, which led to the inference of this giant void
Southern Local Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Local_Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_Supervoid
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What has created this huge empty volume in the universe? No one is yet sure, and even the extent of the estimated billion-light year void is being researched. The void is not a hole in space like a black hole, but rather a vast region of the universe that appears to be mostly devoid of normal matter and even dark matter. The void is still thought to contain dark energy, though, and is clearly traversable by light. The void's existence is being postulated following scientific curiosity about how unusually cold spots came to appear on WMAP's map of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. One possibility was that this CMB region was not actually very cold but light from the spot somehow became more cosmologically redshifted than normal along the way. Other voids in the universe are known to exist, but this void appears to have an unusually large gravitational effect, and so might possibly be the largest in our entire visible universe. Investigating this, a recent study found an unusually low number of cosmic radio sources between Earth and the CMB cold spot, which led to the inference of this giant void |
Southern Local Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Local_Supervoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_Supervoid
Although voids like this are known in the universe, this void is an unusually large supervoid, perhaps 1000 times larger than expected typical voids. This void is somewhere between 6-10 billion lightyears away and nearly one billion lightyears across.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Local_Supervoid
QUOTE
The Northern Local Supervoid is a tremendously large region of space devoid of galaxies known as a void. It is located between the Local, Coma and Hercules superclusters. It contains a few small galaxy systems and galaxy clusters but is mostly empty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Northern Local Supervoid is a tremendously large region of space devoid of galaxies known as a void. It is located between the Local, Coma and Hercules superclusters. It contains a few small galaxy systems and galaxy clusters but is mostly empty. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void
The Boötes void is a tremendously large, approximately spherically shaped nearly-empty region of space, devoid of galaxies. At nearly 250 million light-years in diameter, it is one of the largest known voids, and is referred to as a supervoid.
my idea is better
What if the universe does go into a big crunch,super super massive black holes grabbing all mater and energy until it reaches a critical point and bangs again and this hole is just a super super massive black hole that was not needed(didn't join up with all the rest) for the last bang and was leftover from a previous universe?
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.