|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: New theory on the Big Bang started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Feb. 11 2015,07:32
< It never happened. >Ok, you read that and thought, "religious reasons", but no this is from the world of science. Clearly, this is just another theory, like the Big Bang, but it's an interesting alternative that, as stated, explains some items the Big Bang theory can't explain. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,09:52
Interesting. I look forward to seeing more on this idea.I've never liked "dark matter" and "dark energy" as currently understood. It just seems too much like one of those "our theory isn't explaining things so add a fudge factor" things. Posted by Vince on Feb. 11 2015,10:17
(TPRJones @ Feb. 11 2015,11:52) QUOTE I've never liked "dark matter" and "dark energy" as currently understood. It just seems too much like one of those "our theory isn't explaining things so add a fudge factor" things. I'm with you on that one. It's interesting because the scientific community resisted the idea of the "Big Bang" more than Bible believers. To Jews and Christians it was a short hop from "God created the heavens and the earth" and "there was this big bang". A lot of science disciplines had relied on the fall back of "in infinite time in infinite space everything is not only possible, but likely". In those circumstances you really don't have to concern yourself much with, "what are the odds of that happening?" when talking about celestial events. The big bang theory being widely accepted created a lot more work for some of these guys. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 11 2015,10:21
QUOTE A lot of science disciplines had relied on the fall back of "in infinite time in infinite space everything is not only possible, but likely". In those circumstances you really don't have to concern yourself much with, "what are the odds of that happening?" when talking about celestial events. The big bang theory being widely accepted created a lot more work for some of these guys. Ha! That's the exact direction my brain went as well. I was thinking that this new theory makes a lot of Sci Fi far more plausible. It also boosts the odds of alien life reaching Earth since it has previously been argued that there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for an alien species to develop the technology to get here. Posted by Vince on Feb. 11 2015,10:32
Eventually they'll figure out that we're all part of a simulation and none of it matters anyway.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,10:46
(Leisher @ Feb. 11 2015,12:21) QUOTE It also boosts the odds of alien life reaching Earth since it has previously been argued that there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for an alien species to develop the technology to get here. Not necessarily. Just as this wouldn't make the earth any older than we thought, it probably also doesn't mean our galaxy is older than we thought. Just the universe our galaxy is in. So unless you postulate intergalactic travelers then the odds don't really change there. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2015,10:54
QUOTE So unless you postulate intergalactic travelers then the odds don't really change there. I absolutely do. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,11:04
Okay then.Intergalactic travel does require either tens of millions of years of travel time or some sort of teleportation. Which do you think more likely? Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2015,11:10
(TPRJones @ Feb. 11 2015,13:04) QUOTE Okay then. Intergalactic travel does require either tens of millions of years of travel time or some sort of teleportation. Which do you think more likely? Given enough time, the chance that something breaks the interstellar travel barrier increases to 1. Perhaps that thing has found a way to achieve tachyon-like speeds. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,11:17
QUOTE Given enough time, the chance that something breaks the interstellar travel barrier increases to 1. For that to be true it has to be possible to do so. If it's impossible and light speed really is the speed limit then having all of infinite time to work on it doesn't mean you can do it. We don't yet know if it is possible, so you can't set the odds that high. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2015,11:26
(TPRJones @ Feb. 11 2015,13:17) QUOTE QUOTE Given enough time, the chance that something breaks the interstellar travel barrier increases to 1. For that to be true it has to be possible to do so. If it's impossible and light speed really is the speed limit then having all of infinite time to work on it doesn't mean you can do it. We don't yet know if it is possible, so you can't set the odds that high. Every rule can be < cheated >. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,11:31
Not every rule. Some rules can't be cheated in our universe.And wormholes, IIRC, are theorized to require more energy than contained in the whole universe in order to keep them open. If so not an ideal solution. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2015,11:51
(TPRJones @ Feb. 11 2015,13:31) QUOTE And wormholes, IIRC, are theorized to require more energy than contained in the whole universe in order to keep them open. Today's theory is tomorrow's < joke >. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 11 2015,12:11
(Malcolm @ Feb. 11 2015,13:54) QUOTE QUOTE So unless you postulate intergalactic travelers then the odds don't really change there. I absolutely do. Ditto. I do agree that it's got to be scientifically possible and not sci fi mumbo jumbo, but honestly we know diddly about the universe and how everything actually works. Our knowledge is growing all the time, but I'm sure there is a near infinite amount of stuff that we haven't even theorized about. Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2015,13:26
I agree with you both in principle, but just think you are overstating the odds of what is actually possible.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 11 2015,13:57
This is one of those great stories to remember when anyone talks about science being settled or accusing anyone else of being "anti-science"
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2015,15:54
(Vince @ Feb. 11 2015,16:57) QUOTE This is one of those great stories to remember when anyone talks about science being settled or accusing anyone else of being "anti-science" People saying "the science is settled!" Has always driven me nuts. The scientific method exists in order to dispute "settled" science. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 26 2015,05:59
< New black hole found. >It's so young and large that it doesn't fit into the Big Bang theory. Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2015,07:22
(Leisher @ Feb. 26 2015,07:59) QUOTE < New black hole found. > It's so young and large that it doesn't fit into the Big Bang theory. QUOTE The only problem with the jump-start scenario is that astronomers don't know for sure that million-solar-mass stars ever existed. "We've never seen one," Loeb admits. "But with the James Webb Space Telescope," he says, which is scheduled to go into orbit in 2018, "we just might." Yet. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 26 2015,07:40
(Malcolm @ Feb. 26 2015,10:22) QUOTE (Leisher @ Feb. 26 2015,07:59) QUOTE < New black hole found. > It's so young and large that it doesn't fit into the Big Bang theory. QUOTE The only problem with the jump-start scenario is that astronomers don't know for sure that million-solar-mass stars ever existed. "We've never seen one," Loeb admits. "But with the James Webb Space Telescope," he says, which is scheduled to go into orbit in 2018, "we just might." Yet. That's why they're all theories. Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 02 2015,10:58
< New universe > fucks with astronomers.
|