|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 25, 2014 14:26:07 GMT -6
Dark matter is so hard to detect? It's almost as if the universe has deliberately covered its tracks, made itself hard to understand. In spite of that, we have traced it back 13.72 billion years, and there it disappears into matter, just like Dark Matter, hard to detect.
There are some things that logic, research, and reason can never discover, limits to knowledge that cannot be breached.
Does that mean there is some supernatural solution to it all? Not at all, it just means that mystery will always be with us.
That's miracle enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 25, 2014 16:30:14 GMT -6
It is a guess, and maybe a wrong one, but a mainline guess.
Black Holes and the Big Bang are on much more solid ground.
That you or I exist (insofar as anyone else, or even ourselves, can determine) is also a hypothesis, albeit one on even more solid ground.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 26, 2014 7:15:43 GMT -6
I don't think there is any issue with the big bang theory. There is stil a lot of mystery about it, but little doubt of it's existance. I have heard something that supports buddhism though. For example Time only exists because of change. Time didn't exist before the big bang because there was no motion. Pretty interesting discussion on time on wormhole.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 26, 2014 9:20:32 GMT -6
That is one theory. Another theory is that the future is unwritten and time exists becaue of the space between events.
Meditation is about entering the space between events where time doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 26, 2014 9:31:02 GMT -6
I was thinking I should clarify what I mean by "events". Energy is continuously moving and creating cause and effect. that cause and effect is the event I am referring to, not in a spiritual way but in a quantum physics. For example one physicists equates time with heat. Heat is generated whenever there is activity such as the decay of an atom,,
Accordingly that means that time didn't exist before the big bang, but once that occurred there has always been activity whether it is the birth of the sun, death of the sun, or the simple heat that exists throughout the universe. But what happens when there is absolutely no motion, nothing. That is where according to one theory when theoretically time no longer exists.
Can there be absolutely no motion? Good question.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 26, 2014 12:13:46 GMT -6
Nothing personal but the guy has no credibility. An engineer isn't a physicist.
I haven't been able to find any "real" credible alternative theories other than creationists (Spike psarris) who clearly misrepresents science, evolution, and assorted other claims that he makes that is unsupported and debunked.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 26, 2014 13:53:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 26, 2014 20:42:15 GMT -6
Ah yes, Lerner, the guy that came up with the Plasma cosmology theory that never panned out in 1991. Again, not a credible refutation of the big bang theory. His theory was doesn't match observations current to date. And the original theory came from Hannes Alfven. . As of 2014, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP and the Planck satellite and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[38] The acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology I showed direct statistical evidence that the Arp notion of non-cosmological redshifts for quasars is wrong. That was just the tip of the iceberg, though. Non-cosmological redshifts are a crank theory in astronomy that a scary fringe element keeps whining on about. However, there's this other crank theory that no actual respectable astronomer subscribes to, yet that seems to keep sucking in interested members of the public. That is so-called plasma cosmology (which also has an even more extreme (!!) version known as the "electric universe"). The non-cosmological redshifts for quasars model may have been a respectable alternate model in the first years or first decade after Maarten Schmidt's identification of the then-amazingly high redshift of quasar 3C273 (that paper was in Nature, so you won't actually get to see it, sigh). In contrast, the whole plasma cosmology paradigm was never reasonable, and is certainly not reasonable now. scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 27, 2014 6:38:57 GMT -6
That's certainly an interesting discovery, but it doesn't mean the Big Bang is out the window; after all, there is no evidence that supports any other option. It just means the theory will have to be tweaked. The question is what happened in the first three minutes or so. It might lead to a better understanding of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 27, 2014 6:47:39 GMT -6
When I was growing up, in the 1940s and 1950s, science didn't know the structure of DNA, Continental Drift was considered to be a wild, unlikely theory, computers were huge, primitive mainframe devices that took up a whole room, there were no PCs, the were no satellites in space, and we weren't even sure the universe was expanding. A lot has changed in the past 60 years or so. We just have to wait and see what the ongoing research shows us. It's dangerous to predict what we will learn.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Jul 27, 2014 6:55:34 GMT -6
There are always new discoveries. Today the Big bang theory is in vogue. It still represents the best theory. And yes, it will be tweaked because we don't know everything.
We know that life is a system of evolution because not only have we proved it, but we have seen it in action for short living creatures. The basic theory will continue on, but it will be fine tuned as time goes on.
The Big bang theory so far is working and best explains all of the observed cosmos. But I have no doubt it will be improved and modified. It is even possible that they will actually get past behind the big bang and explain why it happened. That will definitely be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 27, 2014 10:51:07 GMT -6
Scientists never fully believe any idea. That's part of science. They are committed to abandoning any idea as soon as it fails to fit the evidence or a better idea, that fits the evidence better, comes up. Of course, they are human beings, and they often cling to a failed idea until all hope for it is lost. The Big Bang may be given up for a better idea someday, but so far, it's still the best guess they have.
That some facts don't appear to fit may or may not be significant; at one time, for example some stars were thought to be older than the universe itself; later evidence showed that the universe was older than had been though previously.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Jul 28, 2014 4:07:08 GMT -6
One of the greatest mysteries of science has to be HOW matter bends space. The connection. The as yet undetected gravition particle, the mechanism by which it is done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GravitonAs you can see from this article, there are a lot of problem to be resolved in this area.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Aug 2, 2014 9:20:23 GMT -6
When I was growing up, in the 1940s and 1950s, science didn't know the structure of DNA, Continental Drift was considered to be a wild, unlikely theory, computers were huge, primitive mainframe devices that took up a whole room, there were no PCs, the were no satellites in space, and we weren't even sure the universe was expanding. A lot has changed in the past 60 years or so. We just have to wait and see what the ongoing research shows us. It's dangerous to predict what we will learn. As human creatures full of great curiosity, looking into those things we would like to understand, I would imagine that in another 60 years or so much would be seen differently than now. We have gone from the flat earth to the round globe pictured from the moon. From religion ruling science to science attempting to rule religion, (I prefer the blending of the two). Yet the future in fully understanding the universe's secrets are always just beyond our total grasp. We get bits and pieces just to keep our curiosity alive. Unfortunately we have not simply figured out how to totally get along as a planet of humans. The idea of the Big Bang or not is only a microcosm of the disagreements we humans have in comparison to the planet as a whole. I personally will remain optimistic that our base natures will rise to the challenge in and from our great curiosity to know and understand, then put into practice.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on Aug 3, 2014 8:46:05 GMT -6
Science has never attempted to rule religion. There may be many atheists among scientists, but they will always tell you that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
|
|