Universe

[alokmohan]

Challenig establishment is meaning ful by some eminent scientist is one thing.Challenge by Tom,Dick and Harry is meanigless.Few us may have gone throgh the big bang theory .We read summary some where.That may not be sufficient to say yes or no to any theory.We may.make a write up at best.Example Hoyle challenged big bang theory.It befits him.

 

[search]

I say again:<br /><br />"I cannot say that I agree or disagree with any theory as long as it can be proved. I prefer to say that any proved theory is correct until its proven wrong."<br /><br />I could not agree more with you...

 

[qso1]

A theory is not something thats considered proven. That would be a fact. Theories can be modified, even replaced, but once proven...this implies the theory is no longer theory and would not be changed again as its accepted fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

Sorry but I could not disagree more with your comment qso1. <br /><br />To summarize and you can find more sites in a quick search: <br /><br />In science (and I believe this forum its about science) a fact is usually contrasted to a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact<br /><br />Now if you are still not sure about definitions I will gladly find more for you during my spare time.

 

[qso1]

SEARCH:<br />In science (and I believe this forum its about science) a fact is usually contrasted to a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts.<br /><br />Me:<br />I probably misstated in my original response to you. I should point out a few things and this mainly has to do with my understanding of theory and fact. If I had to look up every word in Wiki...I may as well not post as the Wiki defs were at least a page long...a lot to remember. So as I see it, and I'm not expecting one to go by what I see. I'm merely explaining it so you will know where I'm coming from as a person with slightly below normal intelligence level. A theory can explain facts only if we know what the facts are from the onset. I don't doubt the Wiki definitions or scientific defs for that matter. I may have stated it wrong in my response to you but an example I would use is this.<br /><br />Theory of evolution.<br /><br />Why is it called a theory when many folks accept it as fact? Public schools largely accept it as fact which is why there is such a controversy over teaching it. How do we really know if I.D. doesn't play a role in evolution? I don't know for sure.<br /><br />I myself don't doubt what Darwin observed and stated was strong evidence for macro evolution. There is very strong evidence for it. But to state we evolved from a lower species and to further state that the species was an ape and state that as fact (Not to imply Darwin ever stated it as fact, others do) has a couple of problems which IMO highlight this situation.<br /><br />I must first state that I happen to agree with the Darwin model of evolution for the most part. But I'd continue to refer to it as theory or even theoretical as defined by Wiki. But I cannot go back in time and verify 100% that we indeed evolved from apes. Keeping in mind there are other competing theories that are maybe not as valid at this time, such as panspermia. But valid as competing theories until we can verify 100% that we either evol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

qso1 the only reason I give importance to definitions is because its the only way a group of people can discuss about a scientific subject. <br /><br />If the base is wrong then the discussion will be fruitless. Imagine 100 people talking about the pound (lb) but with a different idea of the definition. Some would comment on the sterling pound, some on the weight and others on the reason we are pounding each other with this little things...(just lightening up)<br /><br />In any case I agree with you its impossible to know all definitions but we should know or find out some basic ones like theory and fact.

 

[alokmohan]

The things about Darwins theory has been proved by fossil tests.Fossil test is going to past.Each and everything about Darwins theory might not have been proved but in future we may develop it.Talking abot other thories about evolution?ID theory is no theory,it is religious sermon.We perhaps may not find it serious matter to discuss.Science has some methods ,ID has none. Similarly theories about cosmology has a method in it.

 

[search]

qso1<br /><br />Regarding the Evolution theory here is an interesting site which talks about fact and theory and you will see again why saying fact and theory can be so missleading in science:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html<br /><br />As for Devine Intervention or the french acronym you used I.D. I believe that anyone which aspires to a scientific mind should be open to listen to all explanation proposals including religious ones. <br /><br />Many scientists do or did just that, either because they truly believed in it or to be politically (religiously) correct. <br /><br />How can anyone desmiss the believe of million of religious (any religion) people around the world? That would be ignoring one of the human behavior common heritages: "faith"<br /><br />But another human behavior common heritage is "search for knowledge" which many times has been demineshed by improper use of religion (the Medievel period is such an example, just think where we could be if there was not this knowledge black whole of almost 500 years).<br /><br />The main thing is that science should not behave the same way towards religion so we do not go to the inverse situation of the Medieval Period.<br /><br />Imagine religion forbideen because science would be the only accepted form of knowledge.<br /><br />To summarize: <br />Yes I do prefer scientific definitions to support the global scientific discussions (and definitions could be the discussion objective itself) in this forum but I am always open to debate in a different perspective if I know that is the objective or the framework. <br /><br />

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>SEARCH - </b><br /><br /><i>"How can anyone desmiss the believe of million of religious (any religion) people around the world? That would be ignoring one of the human behavior common heritages: "faith"</i><br /><br />This is a comman and blatant falacy of logic called an""Argumentum ad populum" ("Appeal to the people") ; it has nothing at all to do with science...<br /><br />Just because you have faith or believe in something doesn't make it a reality; science is all about separating things that are facts and reality, from faiths and beliefs which are based on superstition.

 

[search]

Harmonicaman<br /><br />"Dismiss" meaning reject or ignore that millions of people have "faith". It is a "fact" that there are those millions of people in the world. I never said I was or not one of them.<br /><br />The myth persists that science and faith, reason and religion, are mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Albert Einstein confessed that what was most incomprehensible for him was the fact that the universe is comprehensible.<br /><br />Is this showing some faith? Or recognizing that in order to advance in science we need to keep all doors open?<br /><br />I any case the quote you commented on looses the meaning without the full text I wrote and which I hope you read.

 

[ldavidcooke]

Hey SEARCH;<br /><br />The question of the origin is of high interest, especially in relation to your question of the source of the expansion energy. If as Dr. Stephen Hawkins suggests that a singularity leads to another Universe and the matter of one Universe falls into the Universe. Then the kenetic energy of the matter falling into the singularity should likely be added to the energy balance exiting the singularity in the "new" Universe.<br /><br />If a signularity was the point of origin then that would certainly fit the Big Bang theory and would support the constant expansion theory. (Note: I recently left a note in the Dark Matter thread that I suspect if there was dark matter between the galaxies it should be visable either as a reflection or re-emission.) The extra energy of matter falling into the singularity would support the increased rotational speed and would support the creation of whorls creating a concentration of nuclear particles into larger Suns and as such would explain the perliferation of White Dwarfs.<br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>If as Dr. Stephen <b>Hawkins</b> suggests</i><br /><br />Hawking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Hi!<br /><br />It is good to have an open mind concerning variant beliefs - I commend you.<br /><br />It is true that some scientists display a closed mind towards variant models for the origin of life - especially those that involve intelligent design, etc.<br /><br />When you listen to others, including those who disagee with you, you are less likely to be misled along with a crowd that happens to be wrong.<br /><br />Of course, in many debates their is some truth on both sides, and the truth may lie somewhere in between.<br /><br />That is the case with evolution. <br /><br />Microevolution is an established fact with much observational evidence both in actual breeding experiments and observations concerning speciation around the world.<br /><br />Macroevolution is a theory which lacks observational evidence. All the major groups (kinds, not species) appear suddenly in the fossil record; and breeding reaches real genetic barriers that cannot be crossed naturally.<br /><br />Curious how thread went from universe to evolution - I will have to read more of the thread!

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - ID involves many models, some of which are certainly scientifically tenable.<br /><br />For two examples:<br /><br />1. Informational molecules in life cannot be produced by chance - only statistical molecules are formed by chance.<br /><br />2. The laws of our universe give evidence of a law-giver. You cannot have laws without a lawgiver.<br /><br />There is plenty of scientific evidence for intelligent design.<br /><br />In many cases, the method or mechanisms are the same, but the cause is different.<br /><br />Compare, for example living chemistry with non-living chemistry and you will see how different chemical reactions proceed with intelligent or informational direction instead of mere chance.

 

[newtonian]

qso1 - on your first post in this thread:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The energy would be the force of the original bang I would think</font><br /><br />Was that a typo?. <br /><br />Did you mean the force of the original being (ei instead of a)?

 

[SpeedFreek]

I doubt it was a typo. He meant bang as in big-bang.<br /><br />But the recently discovered acceleration of the expansion has been attributed to dark energy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - Just kidding.<br /><br />Indeed, a very popular current model - now how is dark energy propagated?

 

[alokmohan]

Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive influence of dark matter and baryons. The density of dark matter in an expanding universe disappears more quickly than dark energy, and eventually the dark energy dominates. Specifically, when the volume of the universe doubles, the density of dark matter is halved but the density of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant in the case of a cosmological constant).<br /><br />If the acceleration continues indefinitely, the ultimate result will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster will move beyond the cosmic horizon: they will no longer be visible, because their relative speed becomes greater than the speed of light. This is not a violation of special relativity, and the effect cannot be used to send a signal between them. (Actually there is no way to even define "relative speed" in a curved spacetime. Relative speed and velocity can only be meaningfully defined in flat spacetime or in sufficiently small (infinitesimal) regions of curved spacetime). Rather, it prevents any communication between them and the objects pass out of contact. The Earth, the Milky Way and the Virgo supercluster, however, would remain virtually undisturbed while the rest of the universe recedes. In this scenario, the local supercluster would ultimately suffer heat death, just as was thought for the flat, matter-dominated universe, before measurements of cosmic acceleration.<br /><br />There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electr

 

[alokmohan]

There is no such law in the Universe.There is no law maker.Observation leads us to some conclusions.We call it law.For instance Newtons law.He framed no law,eqations are valid upto a point.At a point Newtons laws failed to explain so many thing like transit of mercury.Einsteins theory of relativity has so far been able to explain all thing we know.When it fails ,if ever we have to find alternative.We call it law and that is all.

 

[search]

Hey David Cook<br /><br />"Dark matter is matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (such as light, X-rays and so on) to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter."<br /><br />As for the rest I am sure you will be able to find someone more qualified than me to answer that specific question. If not ask one of the moderators. Maybe Yevaud.<br /><br />Best regards<br />

 

[yevaud]

Hi.<br /><br />Gee, I thought this thread had expired. Ah well.<br /><br />Yes, it is true that "Dark" matter is exactly that: non-radiating, non-emitting. There have been *zero* examples of directly imaging it. In fact, it was only suggested when the astronomer Vera Rubin in the late 50's/early 1960's noticed that the rotational velocities of imaged galaxies didn't conform to what had been presupposed. That is to say, it would be expected that the outer fringes of a rotating galaxy would rotate slower than the inner regions; this turned not to be the case.<br /><br />As stated, the only method for showing the presence of Dark Matter has been it's gravitational effects.<br /><br />As to the rest of Ldavidcook's post: remember that a singularity (black hole) is not precisely the same as the hypothesized primordial monobloc. In point of fact, the term "Singularity" refers to the physics of a region of spacetime (or mathematics) where our understanding of what occurs breaks down. That being the case, it's as likely that the input matter and energy into a singularity appears elsewhere as lemon tapioca. We just plain don't know, and probably won't ever know.<br /><br />I might add here that I cannot decipher what the link between Dark Matter and White Dwarfs is, based on your post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

White dwarfs are faint.So there may be lot of white dwarfs we dont know about.When it becomes black dwarf after losing all radiation what ever is there.There may be dark matter of this nature.Possibly what SEARCH meant.

 

[search]

What a relief your answer is to me Yevaud. <br /><br />I could not make the bridge between the two post either. And I was quite confused with the post here also. <br /><br />Maybe David Cook could rephrase it and make the connection in only one post so we could try it again. I will try however to post on what I tought it was being asked.<br /><br />The remark regarding David Cook post remains as the main objection to the question (unless we are interpreting wrongly). <br /><br />In both post and both questions he referred that we could infer dark matter either due to reflection or radiation. That is not the case and that is exactly the reason why it is called Dark Matter. <br /><br />As for the singularity issue. Many galaxies seem to have a black hole (singularity) in its center. <br /><br />Are you (David Cook) asking if other universes would exist the dark matter origin is energy transfered between universes through the singularities in each galaxy?<br /><br />If that is what you are asking I believe the answer is that then you would be able to get the effects of dark matter close to the center where the singularity is and not as an halo around the galaxy which is what indirect observation is showing about Dark Matter.<br /><br />I read the answer of Borman and quite good as usual.<br /><br />Boreman in the Dark Matter post refered one more and very important element;<br /><br />The pioneer effect <br /><br />In simple words gravity effects may be different outside the solar system and if that would be the case I guarentee you that physics laws would have to be re-written. <br /><br />It is still going to take a long time until the spacecraft gets out of the solar system (see explanation below) and since we do not have relay station in the solar system (yet!) at the present technological stage we would not be able to get the pertinent information. Maybe the future (long term) will be brighter.<br /> <br />"Heliopause<br />The heliosphere expands outward in a great bubble to about 95 AU, o

 

[alokmohan]

Is it sure that dark energy exists?After observation of some supernova lot of year back there sems to be not much data.

 

[search]

Hello alokmohan<br /><br />Is it sure that dark energy exist?<br /><br />NO<br /><br />There is evidence but this evidence is based on the discovery in 1998 that the universe is expanding and accelerating. What this discovery created was a problem for the standard model and therefore it needed to be explained. Dark energy was one of the answers and so far it fits with some degree of confidence the model and the observations until the Champagne supernovae SNLS-03d3bb created a new problem very recently.<br /><br />Read also:<br />http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/680<br /><br />Some do not agree and propose other possibilties to do away with dark energy.<br /><br />These is an example of those who do not accept dark energy as the solution<br />From 2006:<br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/4<br /><br />The main problems:<br />1. Calculating astronomical distances using supernovae type IA as standard candles<br />2. Calculating the effects of gravity over long distances with the known laws of physics. (read also the comment regarding the pioneer effect on my post above and Boreman post of Dark Matter)