That’s perfect...... for you......
Last edited:
Are parts of the universe held together by unknown mass structures?
- Thread starter The Spin Meister
- Start date
The CMB had irregularities in density which led to some of the structure we see today with galaxy clusters and filaments. But it is indeed a good question, that if gravity is insufficient to hold them together and the supposed dark energy is working to pull them apart, why don't they pull apart?
I've thought for awhile that maybe our current understanding of gravity on those scales is simply incomplete. Like the MOND theory describes (as opposed to dark matter).
Cool article. The idea of cosmic entanglement is a mind-blowing extension from the quantum scale entanglement idea. Perhaps at the Big Bang (pre CMB) all the pre-galaxies were connected somehow and maintain that connection.
Goes to show you we have so much to learn.
I've thought for awhile that maybe our current understanding of gravity on those scales is simply incomplete. Like the MOND theory describes (as opposed to dark matter).
Cool article. The idea of cosmic entanglement is a mind-blowing extension from the quantum scale entanglement idea. Perhaps at the Big Bang (pre CMB) all the pre-galaxies were connected somehow and maintain that connection.
Goes to show you we have so much to learn.
Last edited:
When I was a kid -- whatever age you learn about atoms and molecules and such -- I came up with this idea (I've since learned that this is a fairly common thought for kids to have) that our solar system is but an atom in some MASSIVELY larger (and massively more slowly, relatively, moving) world (and perhaps that worlds is but part of an atom in some massively MASSIVELY larger world -- Idk, I stopped at the first massively larger world - lol).
Like, our solar system is just an atom of some element that's a part of a sandwich into which someone is about bite. Kinda hard to comprehend -- Especially the relative difference in perceived "speed" of life between our "world" and the "massively larger" world. For instance, in the span of time that is of one of our lives, the person's teeth biting the sandwich we're a part of would barely even move if you were observing from that world). I don't have the astro-physics knowledge to know just how ridiculous is this hypothesis, but I *think* the hypothesis is regarding a/the scale that is beyond what our scientific knowledge reaches with reasonable certainty (maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so), so I'm considering the hypothesis still valid and thus fun to ponder when on that tequila buzz I was talking about.
Anyway, I kinda think the OP's new information fits quite well with this very scientifically-based hypothesis that I (and other kids) come up with. Seems like a much better explanation than those provided by your physics professor friend, but that's JMO.
"take everything with a giant grain of salt, question everything, trust no one"
That goes for a lot more than scientists.
I think much of it is beyond all of our comprehension to be honest even today's brightest astrophysicists. And yet we should continue to question and none of us should be afraid to do so.
Most great scientific discoveries occur before age 30 or so. Why? Einstein said "the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education". "Experts" often have so thoroughly accepted that which they were educated that they confine their thinking to those boundaries.
A mind that is still learning to grasp concepts is not bound by well established constraints. I am not suggesting that knowing nothing of a subject is the path to scientific discovery. I am merely acknowledging that extended formal education and complete acceptance of established theory often constrain the pursuit of truth. Also, younger neuro-networks have greater plasticity and imagination. I hope to never lose that or the desire to continue questioning.
Last edited:
HIghly recommend this book. Not a big Hawking fan, but that's off the point. This is reasonably written for most, though I re-read some parts, and it does help with explanations of many celestial things that are hard to grasp when explained to you by a drunk buddy.
The ten big questions that are considered include: Is there a God? How did it all begin? What is inside a black hole? Can we predict the future? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Should we colonize space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? How do we shape the future?[
The ten big questions that are considered include: Is there a God? How did it all begin? What is inside a black hole? Can we predict the future? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Should we colonize space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? How do we shape the future?[
Little town called Forest City about 20 miles north of Scranton. 80 kids in my high school graduation class. Too small for a football team but for a lot of years we had a kick-ass basketball program...punched way above our weight.
Fascinating to think what the implications of such a force would be and what created it.Where and when was this created?Could this be the unseen energy of God at work?There is solid evidence that multiple galaxies are tied together somehow. Traveling as a unit or orbiting a central point....even though they are so far apart that gravity cannot be the cause. Is this some dark matter structure we cannot see? Or dark energy forces we cannot measure? Once discovered, will it lead to interstellar travel? Or incredible energy sources for earth more revolutionary than the discovery of electricity?
- New findings in astronomy are making some astronomers doubt our basic model of the universe.
- Alignments of celestial objects suggest that they may be embedded in large-scale structures.
- Galaxies too far apart to be influencing each other are moving through space together.
Is the universe controlled by gigantic structures?
The idea that celestial objects exist within utterly immense cosmic structures is becoming inescapable.bigthink.com
It's funny how we attempt to construct a more complete view of our world while learning. You are learning about a particular topic and can't help but extrapolate ideas to new applications or relate to other topics or determine how what we are learning ties into a broader truth.When I was a kid -- whatever age you learn about atoms and molecules and such -- I came up with this idea (I've since learned that this is a fairly common thought for kids to have) that our solar system is but an atom in some MASSIVELY larger (and massively more slowly, relatively, moving) world (and perhaps that worlds is but part of an atom in some massively MASSIVELY larger world -- Idk, I stopped at the first massively larger world - lol).
Like, our solar system is just an atom of some element that's a part of a sandwich into which someone is about bite. Kinda hard to comprehend -- Especially the relative difference in perceived "speed" of life between our "world" and the "massively larger" world. For instance, in the span of time that is of one of our lives, the person's teeth biting the sandwich we're a part of would barely even move if you were observing from that world). I don't have the astro-physics knowledge to know just how ridiculous is this hypothesis, but I *think* the hypothesis is regarding a/the scale that is beyond what our scientific knowledge reaches with reasonable certainty (maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so), so I'm considering the hypothesis still valid and thus fun to ponder when on that tequila buzz I was talking about.
Anyway, I kinda think the OP's new information fits quite well with this very scientifically-based hypothesis that I (and other kids) come up with. Seems like a much better explanation than those provided by your physics professor friend, but that's JMO.
@LionJim would appreciate this one. While learning algebra in 7th grade, and expanding the terms of (a+b)^2, I figured out that I could apply this to squaring large numbers in my head. If trying to square 32 in my head, I would assign a = 30 and b = 2. Then 32 squared would be a^2 +2ab +b^2. So 30^2 = 900; + 2ab = 2*30*2 or 120; and b^2 = 4. So 32^2 in your head was a quick 1024 answer using this method.
I did a book report on A Brief History of Time in 11th grade. That book was a very laymen's terms approach to some of those same questions and yet there were quite a few parts that I had to reread a few times before I really felt like I understood what was being conveyed. I was big on Hawking after that but it has faded some. I'm sure that this book is a good read although I'm not into some of the ideas Hawking came up with as time went on. You do have to give it to a guy who was smart enough to get the entire scientific community to buy certain ideas only to later argue against them and get them on board with those ideas being wrong. At least he didn't become Michio Kaku who seemed to sell out to science fiction in order to sell more books.HIghly recommend this book. Not a big Hawking fan, but that's off the point. This is reasonably written for most, though I re-read some parts, and it does help with explanations of many celestial things that are hard to grasp when explained to you by a drunk buddy.
The ten big questions that are considered include: Is there a God? How did it all begin? What is inside a black hole? Can we predict the future? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Should we colonize space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? How do we shape the future?[
HIghly recommend this book. Not a big Hawking fan, but that's off the point. This is reasonably written for most, though I re-read some parts, and it does help with explanations of many celestial things that are hard to grasp when explained to you by a drunk buddy.
The ten big questions that are considered include: Is there a God? How did it all begin? What is inside a black hole? Can we predict the future? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Should we colonize space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? How do we shape the future?[
Thanks, Hawking was an amazing man. Here's my humble shot at his questions:
Is there a God? The answer is beyond the purview of science to prove or disprove, and the concept is beyond the power of the human mind to comprehend...but: yes.
How did it all begin? With an explosive release of energy of unimaginable power.
What is inside a black hole? No clue.
Can we predict the future? We can't even get the weather right all the time.
Is time travel possible? Theoretically.
Will we survive on Earth? Long-term, life of some sort will likely survive until our sun dies, but the survival of the human species is questionable.
Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Yes.
Should we colonize space? Not until we get earth right.
Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? No.
How do we shape the future? By learning from the past and understanding the present.
Cool. One of my daughters currently lives outside Tunkhannock, and her husband's Mom lives in Wellsboro.
I know Wellsboro very well. Have not lived there for about 50 years but I occasionally travel through it to get to Pine Creek for some nostalgic trout fishing above and in the canyon. Or to go to the Laura’s Festival.
The Saurya Das quantum model proves the universe to be infinite and eternal.
Which is why intelligent life is but a rumor.
Keep in mind, however, that by definition, a model can not "prove" a scientific fact.
I think it's accurate to say that even years after the fascinating model advanced by Saurya Das, most scientists still look to the Big Bang as the explanation for the physical origin of the universe.
For example:
This Is Why There Are No Alternatives To The Big Bang (forbes.com)
As to intelligent life being a rumor, you got me there. We flatter ourselves as fitting the category but time after time show otherwise by behavior that seems anything but.
In The Big Bang, Simon Singh talks about Georges Lematrie, the Jesuit priest who, along with Alexander Friedmann, recognized the expansion of the Universe, which lead to the necessity of having a Big Bang. I'm forgetting the specifics but prior to the BBT the standard model was a steady state one, the universe being infinitely old. (This might or might not be identical to the particular Steady State model supported by Fred Hoyle, I forget exactly.)
The BBT postulates a beginning, hence the possibility of a God who created the universe. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I've seen nothing in science which prevents the existence of a God who created the universe. Bear in mind that my in-laws were both college biology professors so I would read their many, many books on evolution.
If you ask me if God controls what happens in the universe, my answer would be, "Up to BBT implying all of physics."
The BBT postulates a beginning, hence the possibility of a God who created the universe. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I've seen nothing in science which prevents the existence of a God who created the universe. Bear in mind that my in-laws were both college biology professors so I would read their many, many books on evolution.
If you ask me if God controls what happens in the universe, my answer would be, "Up to BBT implying all of physics."
Well put, Jim. Re God, at the end of the day, there are two factors in play...neither of them products of science.
The first factor is reason, and on that score, the concept of belief is neither more nor less consistent than the other side of the argument.
The second factor is faith. We all know about that quality as regards belief. What is less recognized is that when the question is traced back to its logical end, the non-believers must fall back on faith too...since they have no exclusively physical proof for the origin of the universe.
OK fine, one faith against another. I'd just prefer that the other side doesn't insult my intelligence by claiming anything other than their own brand of faith as the basis for a non-believing vision of the universe's existence.
His book title would have been more accurate as " scientifically informed opinions to the big questions". Although Stephen Hawking's opinions would hold more weight than virtually anybody else's opinion, most of the questions he attempts to answer cannot possibly be answered, at least at our current level of knowledge.HIghly recommend this book. Not a big Hawking fan, but that's off the point. This is reasonably written for most, though I re-read some parts, and it does help with explanations of many celestial things that are hard to grasp when explained to you by a drunk buddy.
The ten big questions that are considered include: Is there a God? How did it all begin? What is inside a black hole? Can we predict the future? Is time travel possible? Will we survive on Earth? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? Should we colonize space? Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? How do we shape the future?[
I'd never heard of that model before, will read into it. One thing that always fired me up were the proposals that the universe began at the Big Bang AND it is infinite (spatially). It is logically impossible for both to be true, which is pretty profound if you then think of the implications.
That title would be more accurate, though the primordial lesson school taught us was that an 'answer' does not always have to be correct. Some may empathize here, it's nearly every day that I give the wrong answer to my wife, often picking wrong from only two choices.
So science says there is some unknown higher power at the center of it all.
Science and religion seem to be coming together...weird
In my opinion, as unnoteworthy as it is. The crux of this all lies in the concept of unification theory. In quantum's there are something's we can't make any smaller, or we can't see them, i.e. they become meta, or essence, or just being. It is our duty to explore the unification of meta and the physical worlds. Not so easy, but there is something that unified this dichotomy of our existential world.
Last edited:
If the universe is infinite, there must be an infinite number of mes out there. That is really going to piss off the test board idiots.
Had the same thoughts, just like millions of kids as it’s a pretty obvious comparison. But, being smarter than you, I took it a couple steps further than you. Our solar system is an atom and the Milky Way galaxy is actually a massive molecule. Perhaps a protein. Other galaxies are also molecules and they all interact with each other.When I was a kid -- whatever age you learn about atoms and molecules and such -- I came up with this idea (I've since learned that this is a fairly common thought for kids to have) that our solar system is but an atom in some MASSIVELY larger (and massively more slowly, relatively, moving) world (and perhaps that worlds is but part of an atom in some massively MASSIVELY larger world -- Idk, I stopped at the first massively larger world - lol).
Like, our solar system is just an atom of some element that's a part of a sandwich into which someone is about bite. Kinda hard to comprehend -- Especially the relative difference in perceived "speed" of life between our "world" and the "massively larger" world. For instance, in the span of time that is of one of our lives, the person's teeth biting the sandwich we're a part of would barely even move if you were observing from that world). I don't have the astro-physics knowledge to know just how ridiculous is this hypothesis, but I *think* the hypothesis is regarding a/the scale that is beyond what our scientific knowledge reaches with reasonable certainty (maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so), so I'm considering the hypothesis still valid and thus fun to ponder when on that tequila buzz I was talking about.
Anyway, I kinda think the OP's new information fits quite well with this very scientifically-based hypothesis that I (and other kids) come up with. Seems like a much better explanation than those provided by your physics professor friend, but that's JMO.
Meteors and asteroids are subatomic particles that occasionally crash into us like radiation particles. Supernovas and quasars are radioactive atoms in decay like uranium or plutonium.
As I got older and wiser I realized this is pretty preposterous. I now know we are just some kid’s terrarium that he set up for his eighth grade science class. Sorta like an ant farm.
If the theoreticians who contend our observable universe is one of a possibly infinite number, you have to wonder if the so called dark energy or dark matter is a manifestation of this ? Imagine the domains of the universe arranged something like the pages of an infinitely thick book. Can the contents of one domain somehow affect others ?
