Pelican Parts Forums
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   If the universe is expanding (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1104644-if-universe-expanding.html)

Eric Hahl 10-19-2021 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tervuren (Post 11490121)
Eric, do you really believe that humans are evolving?
What I see is knowledge is being passed down and not having to be gained anew.
Our knowledge is evolving.
But humans?
What is our DNA doing?
I sure do. I believe nothing stays the same. There is constant change in everything, good or bad.

What is our DNA doing? Well, cancer research tells us its mutating, changing. At least some of it. Of course we look at this as a bad thing, it kills us after all. I just wonder if its mutations like this that are testing the waters of change so to speak. Is that part of evolution? Yeah, weird thought I guess.

Crowbob 10-19-2021 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcoles (Post 11490733)
This sounds good - I was following until "nothing is moving yet the universe is expanding".
The TV show I mentioned above was exploring this subject as it relates to finding other life or other life finding us.
Because time slows as speed increases, the faster an object travels, the longer it takes to go from point a to point b. Taking it to the extreme, which is the speed at which the universe is expanding, time is nearly static, at the extreme time stops. Per some, there is nothing to warp space-time.

It is not possible, mathematically, for there not to be life on some other planet. If there are infinite or nearly infinite stars, galaxies, etc. the probability that there is one planet and one planet only that has life, approaches zero.

sc_rufctr 10-19-2021 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 11490861)
...

It is not possible, mathematically, for there not to be life on some other planet. If there are infinite or nearly infinite stars, galaxies, etc. the probability that there is one planet and one planet only that has life, approaches zero.
Yea but were are they? And why haven't we found any sign of them?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PTO8fJzae8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hcoles 10-19-2021 08:20 AM
from a practical standpoint.... say we find a planet with life that can listen to signals we might send.
We send the first signal and they get it X thousands of years later. They send a signal back that we get 2X thousands of years later that we can't understand. Or let's say we do understand. The response is "Hi Earth, glad to meet you. What can we do for you?" We send a message back listing what they might do for us.... this continues and maybe 10 thousand years pass before we get anything useful. Not going to happen, a huge waste of money.

Eric Hahl 10-19-2021 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 11490861)
Because time slows as speed increases, the faster an object travels, the longer it takes to go from point a to point b. Taking it to the extreme, which is the speed at which the universe is expanding, time is nearly static, at the extreme time stops. Per some, there is nothing to warp space-time.

It is not possible, mathematically, for there not to be life on some other planet. If there are infinite or nearly infinite stars, galaxies, etc. the probability that there is one planet and one planet only that has life, approaches zero.
Time only slows for the traveler, not the observer.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great explanation of time and speed. Goes something like this.
Imagine you are a photon of light being emitted from the Sun. You reach the Sun surface and start your journey towards Earth. you are traveling at the speed of light. For the outside observer it takes 8 minutes for you to reach Earth. However, you reached the speed of light so time stopped for you. You were born and instantly died in the same moment you hit some bare ass on a beach someplace on Earth.

Crowbob 10-19-2021 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 11490873)
Yea but were are they? And why haven't we found any sign of them?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PTO8fJzae8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We have. To some other inhabited planet that surely is out there, we are the aliens. But the search (ours or theirs) for intelligent life may take a while longer.

Tervuren 10-19-2021 09:22 AM
I suppose I was misunderstood.
I wasn't saying humanity stays the same.
Rather that it seems humanity is devolving while our tech and increased numbers are masking it.
The ideas that Glenn posted are rather outdated and might have been more believeable when those ideas went mainstream in academia in the late 1800's.
The discoveries since keep yielding "complications" to that idea.

There is a certain self rightesness smugness in assuming evolution.
The smugness from the implication that I would then be superior to those who came before.
It makes me laugh, and I have to stop and question if we really are. SmileWavy
I'm not tabs level perfection; so as younger than tabs that weights me to devolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Hahl (Post 11490856)
I sure do. I believe nothing stays the same. There is constant change in everything, good or bad.

What is our DNA doing? Well, cancer research tells us its mutating, changing. At least some of it. Of course we look at this as a bad thing, it kills us after all. I just wonder if its mutations like this that are testing the waters of change so to speak. Is that part of evolution? Yeah, weird thought I guess.

Eric Hahl 10-19-2021 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tervuren (Post 11490970)
I suppose I was misunderstood.
I wasn't saying humanity stays the same.
Rather that it seems humanity is devolving while our tech and increased numbers are masking it.
The ideas that Glenn posted are rather outdated and might have been more believeable when those ideas went mainstream in academia in the late 1800's.
The discoveries since keep yielding "complications" to that idea.

There is a certain self rightesness smugness in assuming evolution.
The smugness from the implication that I would then be superior to those who came before.
It makes me laugh, and I have to stop and question if we really are. SmileWavy
I'm not tabs level perfection; so as younger than tabs that weights me to devolution.
Maybe evolution is the wrong term...maybe just simply change because I am right there with ya on the devolving comment, lol.

Pazuzu 10-19-2021 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 11489212)
Two objects traveling away from each other each at the speed of light means they are traveling at twice the speed of light. In other words, object A is moving away from object B at twice the speed of light and vice versa.

That’s the relativity part. The objects are moving relative to each other at twice the speed of light. But relative to their starting point, each are moving away from it at the speed of light.

However, if you have infinite starting points with infinite objects moving away from them, nothing is moving at greater than the speed of light. Yet, even though one edge of the universe is receding from the opposite edge at infinite multiples of the speed of light, because time relative to the object slows as that object approaches the speed of light, as the universe expands it takes proportionally longer to travel greater distance so that at some point in space-time, nothing is moving yet the universe is expanding.
That is not correct. You're using two completely different things that *seem* similar, but are in fact describing two completely different scenarios.

Special relativity concerns motion COMPARED TO A REFERENCE FRAME. When you move quickly compared to a reference frame, you will see time dilation and length contraction and such.

Expansion of the Universe is expansion OF THE REFERENCE FRAME ITSELF. Completely different science. Two objects will appear to move away from each other based on the redshift, but they are not each moving in respect to the reference frame. Apparent super-luminar speed (greater than the speed of light) between distant objects from the expansion of the Universe doesn't mean that they are actually moving that fast WITH RESPECT TO A REFERENCE FRAME, they can in fact be standing still, yet the red shift shows a motion of separation.

Crowbob 10-19-2021 10:28 AM
What Mike said, I think.

Shaun @ Tru6 10-19-2021 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Verburg (Post 11490696)
here's an even broader and more detailed look, be sure to watch the animation at the bottom, The scope is breathtaking

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-new-3d-map-of-the-universe-covers-more-than-100-million-light-years-753656/
It was, thanks Bill.

This also blew my mind at the opposite end of scope. Love Dr. Don Lincoln, a true rock star.

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dr6nNvw55C4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Geneman 10-19-2021 05:03 PM
If evidence of previous biotic life is found on mars, ( barring hitching a ride on one of our landers) its extremely likely it originated on earth first and was transported there due to due to earths bombardment with meteors etc. see the panspermia hypothesis. the epochs on earth wherein biotic life teemed on earth overlapped significantly with impacts which could project material that far,. plus its been proven spores can survive in space. jmho

flatbutt 10-20-2021 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneman (Post 11489863)
Interesting contribution on this just published: 94% of all galaxies in the visible universe unreachable. .. unless one can travel faster than light... very well written article with great diagrams...

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universes-galaxies-unreachable/
The concept of expanding space always intrigues me. It's not the same as the distance between galaxies increasing but the expansion of the space which contains all of it.

My apes brain asks "wait how can space itself expand? Expand into what?"

If space is expanding doesn't it need additional room to expand into? What lies beyond the ultimate edge of space that contains the area needed for expansion? Oh it just blows my mind.

1990C4S 10-20-2021 05:42 AM
My main takeaway here is that FB has an 'ape brain'. So, basically, nothing new to see.

Crowbob 10-20-2021 05:53 AM
There is no ‘edge’ of the universe. Though simplistic, think of the center of the universe as being a light bulb. The light emitted by that bulb is the universe itself. The light particles being objects such as, say, galaxy clusters. The closer to the bulb, the more intense is the light; the closer the galaxy clusters are to one another and can be seen by each other. Similarly, the farther away from the bulb, the less intense the light. Eventually, at some point, the light being emitted is so weak, the light particles being so far away from the center and from each other that there is no longer any energy, force or influence of any kind of any particle over any other particle. There is no information passed from one particle to another particle. There is nothing.

However, those particles are still moving away from the center-expanding the universe.

Tervuren 10-20-2021 06:35 AM
An important distinction to understand about "science", is there is that which can be tested and repeated which and that this is separate from that which we lack the capability to conduct the same.

That which falls into the latter, although interesting, and I'm glad people pursue it, is subject to chang.
To devote oneself to memorization of that which is cannot be calibrated should be done with the mindset that what one is learning may yet prove false.

Crowbob 10-20-2021 06:42 AM
Who’s Chang?

Tervuren 10-20-2021 07:05 AM
Emperor Wuzhao
Had he but been given coffee at birth but without the cough his birth name would have been Change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 11491950)
Who’s Chang?

GH85Carrera 10-20-2021 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tervuren (Post 11491940)
An important distinction to understand about "science", is there is that which can be tested and repeated which and that this is separate from that which we lack the capability to conduct the same.

That which falls into the latter, although interesting, and I'm glad people pursue it, is subject to chang.
To devote oneself to memorization of that which is cannot be calibrated should be done with the mindset that what one is learning may yet prove false.
That is most of what physics is, lots of math and thinking brought Einstein to come up with what is no doubt the most famous equation of all, E = mc2. There was no way to test his theory of relativity at all, at first. Over the years it has indeed been tested and proved to be precise.

It all came from just a smart man thinking and scribbling notes on paper, but without his theory, the GPS system would be totally impossible. With just Newtonian math, the GPS system will not work. Einstein certainly had no idea how his theory would ever be of real practical application, but all of the GPS systems used by all the different countries of the world rely on his theory every day.

Pazuzu 10-20-2021 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatbutt (Post 11491849)
The concept of expanding space always intrigues me. It's not the same as the distance between galaxies increasing but the expansion of the space which contains all of it.

My apes brain asks "wait how can space itself expand? Expand into what?"

If space is expanding doesn't it need additional room to expand into? What lies beyond the ultimate edge of space that contains the area needed for expansion? Oh it just blows my mind.
Our 3 dimensional space is expanding into the 4th dimension.

Take the balloon that keeps getting mentioned. Draw the dots that keep getting mentioned. Those dots are 2-dimentional creatures, they can go left and right and forwards and backwards on the surface of the balloon, but that's it. They also cannot see that the balloon wraps around on itself in 3 dimensions.
Blow up the balloon. The balloon expands in the 3rd dimension (up/down), while those 2-D dot-creatures all move apart from each other in their 2-D world. But, the dot-creatures say "where are we expanding INTO? It makes no sense!". That's because they're expanding into the 3rd dimension, which means nothing to their 2-dimension minds.


We are a 3 dimension Universe expanding into the 4th dimension, which means nothing to our 3-D brains.

Pazuzu 10-20-2021 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tervuren (Post 11491940)
An important distinction to understand about "science", is there is that which can be tested and repeated which and that this is separate from that which we lack the capability to conduct the same.

That which falls into the latter, although interesting, and I'm glad people pursue it, is subject to chang.
To devote oneself to memorization of that which is cannot be calibrated should be done with the mindset that what one is learning may yet prove false.
Do you think that things like the expansion of the Universe cannot or have not been tested? Or that we lack the capability to test it?

Because we do test it.

Shaun @ Tru6 10-20-2021 05:17 PM
^^^ which begs the question, what is the Universe expanding into?

Pazuzu 10-20-2021 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6 (Post 11492714)
^^^ which begs the question, what is the Universe expanding into?
It's not. Again, the balloon example. The balloon universe is 2-dimensional, the surface of the balloon is the ENTIRETY of that Universe. There is nothing but the surface of that balloon, it is everything. Yet, it is expanding, right? It's not expanding into anything, because the entire universe is right there on the surface of that balloon, yet it expands.

That's because a 2D universe can expand it 3 dimensions. It does NOT mean that it's a 3D universe, it means it's a 2D universe, mathematically expanding in an extra dimension. The math doesn't care about such things, there is a whole branch of calculus that takes place in an N-dimension universe, where N is unlimited.

WE are a 3D Universe, wrapped around in another dimension, and expanding according to that dimension. The entirety of our 3D Universe exists now, before and future, and is expanding, but not into anything.

Bill Douglas 10-20-2021 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6 (Post 11492714)
^^^ which begs the question, what is the Universe expanding into?
And... Who's universe is decreasing to make room for our overly aggressive universe taking it's turf.

Tervuren 10-21-2021 03:03 AM
See my early post in the thread for the answer to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 11492366)
Do you think that things like the expansion of the Universe cannot or have not been tested? Or that we lack the capability to test it?

Because we do test it.

Bill Verburg 10-21-2021 05:22 AM
To make things even more complicated,
Superstring theory suggests at least 10 dimensional Space-time
M Theory suggests 11
Bosonic Sting Theory suggests 26

GH85Carrera 10-21-2021 05:27 AM
One of the greatest things the Hubble telescope found was the red shift of far away galaxies. The universe expansion is increasing, and that means an input of energy. That leads to "dark energy" and we have yet to be able to fine any way to detect dark energy. It seems to be a never ending rabbit hole of new discoveries, and learning we have so much more to learn.

And Dark matter is another total mystery.

nota 10-21-2021 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6 (Post 11492714)
^^^ which begs the question, what is the Universe expanding into?
the NOT YET

REALLY NOTHING

THE SPACE IS GROWING
THE STUFF IS NOT GROWING

churchies do NOT like it but they are so wrong about everything it doesNOT matter :rolleyes:

Shaun @ Tru6 10-22-2021 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 11492843)
It's not. Again, the balloon example. The balloon universe is 2-dimensional, the surface of the balloon is the ENTIRETY of that Universe. There is nothing but the surface of that balloon, it is everything. Yet, it is expanding, right? It's not expanding into anything, because the entire universe is right there on the surface of that balloon, yet it expands.

That's because a 2D universe can expand it 3 dimensions. It does NOT mean that it's a 3D universe, it means it's a 2D universe, mathematically expanding in an extra dimension. The math doesn't care about such things, there is a whole branch of calculus that takes place in an N-dimension universe, where N is unlimited.

WE are a 3D Universe, wrapped around in another dimension, and expanding according to that dimension. The entirety of our 3D Universe exists now, before and future, and is expanding, but not into anything.
What if the Big Bang is the result of a multiverse collision from 2 or more dimensions?

flatbutt 10-22-2021 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6 (Post 11494038)
What if the Big Bang is the result of a multiverse collision from 2 or more dimensions?
This is the stuff that makes my mind boggle. How could ALL of the material in the universe have been contained in what amounts to a singularity? Sure, suspend everything we know about physics and maybe then it might be possible.

I forget where I read this but it stated that miniaturization has a physical limit due to the immutable distance between an electron and its' nucleus. So for the Big Bang to be possible intra-nuclear forces would need to be set aside for such dense packing to occur.

Wait, you say that sub atomic particles didn't exist prior to the Big Bang so our physical laws don't apply. Well, then there is no way to explain how such a condition could occur.

So, Shaun may be on to something. I need more coffee.

Geneman 10-22-2021 07:54 AM
MOND modified newtonian dynamics. passes another test... can explain fuilly the CMB. another step towards discarding the need for dark matter to explain galactic dynamics...

https://xnewsnet.com/the-new-mond-theory-is-able-to-take-into-account-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

flatbutt 10-22-2021 10:01 AM
Huh scalars and vectors working together somehow. Correct or no that's some out of the box thinking.

Pazuzu 10-25-2021 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneman (Post 11494348)
MOND modified newtonian dynamics. passes another test... can explain fuilly the CMB. another step towards discarding the need for dark matter to explain galactic dynamics...

https://xnewsnet.com/the-new-mond-theory-is-able-to-take-into-account-the-cosmic-microwave-background/
The mark of a strong theory: It can a priori predict a completely unknown and unseen phenomenon, which is then discovered and shown to follow perfectly. Positrons, CMB, double helix.

The mark of a weak theory: It can a posteriori model a previously known phenomenon.

The CMB is fully and completely described by the Inflationary Big Bang theory, without any careful selection of parameters or mathematical tricks.

I don't know why everyone is so afraid of dark matter, YOU are dark matter. Dark matter includes atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas.

Shaun @ Tru6 10-27-2021 02:09 PM
have started watching this after my head hurting leaning about electron spin which seems to be the most contrived, complicated explanation of what should be an elegant and simple theory.

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hyctIDPRSqY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nota 10-28-2021 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 11498157)
The mark of a strong theory: It can a priori predict a completely unknown and unseen phenomenon, which is then discovered and shown to follow perfectly. Positrons, CMB, double helix.

The mark of a weak theory: It can a posteriori model a previously known phenomenon.

The CMB is fully and completely described by the Inflationary Big Bang theory, without any careful selection of parameters or mathematical tricks.

I don't know why everyone is so afraid of dark matter, YOU are dark matter. Dark matter includes atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas.
no stuff that clumps or glows when hot
is not dark matter

you are not dark matter
nor ARE atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas

that is all normal matter
heat it it will glow
form a clump it will stay and attack more
DARK MATTER IS SOMETHING ELSE
IT CAN'T CLUMP OR GLOW

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DARK MATTER IS
BUT 30% OF THE UNIVERSE IS DARK MATTER VS 5% normal matter
with 65% dark energy that is the force driving the expansion
we do not know what dark energy is ether

Pazuzu 10-28-2021 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nota (Post 11500775)
no stuff that clumps or glows when hot
is not dark matter

you are not dark matter
nor ARE atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas

that is all normal matter
heat it it will glow
form a clump it will stay and attack more
DARK MATTER IS SOMETHING ELSE
IT CAN'T CLUMP OR GLOW

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DARK MATTER IS
BUT 30% OF THE UNIVERSE IS DARK MATTER VS 5% normal matter
with 65% dark energy that is the force driving the expansion
we do not know what dark energy is ether
Did PBS tell you that?

Dark matter is matter that can be measured gravitation-ly, but not using normal electromagnetic spectrum studies. No IR, no radio, no visual, no waves. Dark matter has existed in our research for decades, MANY decades.

There is some materials that seem to contribute that we cannot quantify (i.e. there doesn't seem to be enough planets, dust, comets, asteroids, aliens or rocks per star to contribute enough gravity), but to say that dark matter is something different is not true. Accepting a reasonable amount of weakly interacting, primary particles per cubic lightyear DOES solve it though.

nota 10-29-2021 06:57 AM
no hawking and these guys https://forum.cosmoquest.org/

I am nota there also

physic's requires PROOF NOT GUESSES

Crowbob 10-29-2021 07:07 AM
The universe isn’t expanding. It’s just getting bigger.

Shaun @ Tru6 11-05-2021 02:03 PM
Clearly Dr. Lincoln has read this thread and created a video to explain one of my questions.

<iframe width="1502" height="845" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A0FZgCiJGrg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Superman 11-06-2021 08:35 AM
Relativity is weird. My figures are guesses from a previous set of accurate facts, but good enough for illustration: Imagine three objects, A, B and C. Object B is receding from Object A at .6C. Object C is receding from Object B at .7C. All three objects are in a straight line, and their movements keep them in a straight line. It would seem that Object C is receding from Object A at 1.3C but this is impossible and untrue. According to relativity, Object C is receding from Object A at .82C.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:44 AM.
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.