2. Another one to ponder overnight. I believe it was called Schroedinger's cat in the box. In short, it is a thought experiment in Quantum Mechanics. A theory that states that Quantum particles are in a state of flux, until observed and forced into one state or another. Such as light waves existing also as particles. Now to the cat, we have a cat in a box completely sealed off from any and all observation by any means. Within this box is a vial of poison, since we cannot know what the state of the cat is, either alive or dead, we must assume that it is neither. Now when we open the box and observe the cat, it can be in only one state alive or dead, which state it is in depends on when we observed the cat, what state it was in when the box was opened. Now to really bake your noodle, does anything we know exist because it always has or does it exist because someone thought of it and then searched for it forcing its existence?

chesty

The popular theory nowadays is that the universe is expanding, and if the mass (or is it density?) of the universe is greater than a certain value, the universe will collapse on itself; otherwise, it will expand forever. Now, with that out of the way, here are my thoughts.

The universe is expanding into space. What is "space" anyway? Space is just a vacuum... there is nothing there (except maybe an atom of this and an atom of that every few cubic inches... which is NOT a lot). So the universe (stars, planets, nebulae, space etc...) is just "expanding" (i.e. matter is drifting further apart from other matter) into your plain ordinary space. If "space" itself were bounded, then something OUTSIDE of the universe would have to be creating that boundary... and since our concept of "universe" is "everything," that is not allowed.

In regards to Schroedinger's cat... I read a little about it in one of those cool physics book at Barnes and Noble, but I never really understood the significance of it. Know a good online source where I can get good information about it? In response to just the cat's state... when the cat is in the box is it either "alive" or "dead," logic dictates that it CANNOT be "neither." Just because we don't know if it's alive or dead doesn't mean that it's neither alive nor dead. That goes back to the old "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" Yes, it does... sound is produced by vibrations in the air and ground when the tree falls. Who gives a crap if no one is there to hear it... the ground is still gonna vibrate when the thing falls down.

In response to your last question, practically speaking (like if we're speaking of common objects in everyday life), they exist because they are there. My wallet doesn't just vanish into inexistence when I put it in my pocket and go "ooh, I can't see my wallet! where'd it go?!?!!?" Now if your last question was a God pondering like "did the universe always exist, or did God get bored one day and make it?", then I cannot even begin to comprehend wtf happened 15-20 billion years ago to start the Big Bang... and much less what existed before that.

Me.

Neither space nor time can be seen in their pure forms, for otherwise we could see the present spatial Universe and our own past. We see only light, an electromagnetic component of spacetime, whose finite velocity constrains our view to a personally unique sequence of spacetime shells receding to the Creation Event.

For as what is beyond the dimensional spatial conservation domain of light, we cannot intuitively know. As it incorporates multiple dimensions, where we must construct a model based not solely on geometry but with the fundamental added dimension of time which ultimatly still isn't sufficient to map past the extremeties of spacetime.

Chew over that for a while.

I also remember reading a theory that proved that all points in the universe are equidistant to all other points, but i can't seem to remember the logic behind it.

Damn!

As for the cat, who cares.

Here is one that really pisses off Schroedenberg by Hackuam. If you try to observe a partical in its natural state of existance, such as a bluon or nueon, you can't they are not detectible by any convential measuring device. The only way to "see" them is to force them to move from there initial state of existance to another state of existance. The movement is what is observed not the state. There for how can you tell if the partical exist at all? You just can't you can only conjecture that it is there my it's trace movement.

Here is what I believe is beyond the Boundary of the know Universe. Non-reality, my theory is like the episode in Star Trek TNG, where the Dr. Crusher is trapped inside a warp bubble leaving in a reality that she created at the moment her new universe (warp bubble) was created with her in it. Now, in her case her universe started to collapse in on itself, ours is expanding. The point is this, is the reality we live in created by us and our thoughts? And we are just one universe existing inside another, that exists inside another and so on, like infinite reflections in a mirror.

Most people grasped the idea of the macroscopic, microscopic world, but the quantum world stumped you. The reason that Schroedinger's cat is neither alive nor dead is because it is in a state of flux, much like the electrons, protons and so forth. We cannot know precisely their position and momentum at the same time, the more we know about one the less we know about the other. That is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. So it is with Schroedinger's cat. When we finally observe it by some means we force the cat into one of two states, alive or dead, this Gedunken or thought experiment is meant to examine the quantum world, not the microscopic or macroscopic world in which the same rules apply but in a different manner. If you have heard of the term of collapsing wave function, that is what Schroedinger's Cat is about.

Now for the collapse of the Universe, right now at this point in time the Universe is expanding, and there may be enough mass to "close" the Universe. By this I mean halt the expansion and reverse it. But right now we are missing the mass and it is being referred to as dark matter, since 90% of the mass of the Universe is not visible to us. Now, to ponder this, if the Universe was to collapse in on itself, would the second law of thermodynamics be violated?

I believe the Universe is closed and will collapse back on itself, and I believe that it might cause a violation of the second law, Hawkings used to think that, but then changed his mind after studying spontaneous pair particle creation around black holes of photons and virtual photons. He now believes that the second law cannot be violated.

1. There was a big bang, and the universe was created.

There's absolutely no proof of this! just because they assume the redshift of the galaxies means they are moving out doesn't mean that's what happens. Maybe there's another phenomenon we don't know about yet.

2. Dark Matter

What is this dark matter? they can't explain a phenomenon, so they resort to this, there has been absolutely no evidence of anything that could be dark matter.

3. Black Holes

Anyone ever see one? it's a mathematical possibility, but that's all, nobody really knows whether a star can actually collapse to a point beyond a neutral point, and that's assuming the space-time continuum is anything like what they speculate.

4. The distance of the universe.

How do they know Alpha Centauri is actually 4.2 light years away? This is a theory based on mathmatical calculations using the so called "Red Shift" which may or may not be true.

5. Evolution

There is no such thing as evolution man! Why don't we see monkeys in a pre-human stage?
you see a monkey, you see a monkey, not some weird hybrid.

6. Dinasours

Sure there might have been some types of animals like that, but they are taking quite a huge leap from a bunch of old bones, look what they're saying now! they say today's birds are the evolved dinosaurs! this is all fantasy man!

The truth is that these "scientists" care more about looking smart, than true science, which in this case is admitting they know JACK SQUAT!

------------------
Particle Weapon...UP YOUR ASS!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Future One:
There is no such thing as dark matter! these are some of the stupid theories that have gone about:

1. There was a big bang, and the universe was created.

There's absolutely no proof of this! just because they assume the redshift of the galaxies means they are moving out doesn't mean that's what happens. Maybe there's another phenomenon we don't know about yet.

---

Yes, there is proof and Penziaz and Wilson found it in the 60's while working for I believe GE. They discovered the uniform background radiation that is the remnant of the big bang. It is at the right temperature approximately 4 degrees kelvin.

quote:

---

2. Dark Matter

What is this dark matter? they can't explain a phenomenon, so they resort to this, there has been absolutely no evidence of anything that could be dark matter.

---

Yes, dark matter can be inferred as existing because the distribution of the mass in the Universe can only be explained by the presence of some unseen matter that exerts a gravitational force.

You don't see or know what the for of gravity is yet you feel its effects every day and know it to be true, but how it is transmitted is a mystery.

quote:

---

3. Black Holes

Anyone ever see one? it's a mathematical possibility, but that's all, nobody really knows whether a star can actually collapse to a point beyond a neutral point, and that's assuming the space-time continuum is anything like what they speculate.

---

Yes, about 6 years ago, in the Sombreo galaxy (not sure if this one exactly) a massive black hole was observed. Its mass derived from simple mechanics that determined what mass would be neccasarry to cause the rotational velocity of the observed matter around the center. The answer, a black hole would be the only creature able to produce that kind of mass, over 10,000 solar masses!!! So, yes it has been directly observed.

quote:

---

4. The distance of the universe.

How do they know Alpha Centauri is actually 4.2 light years away? This is a theory based on mathmatical calculations using the so called "Red Shift" which may or may not be true.

---

Actually Alpha Centauri's distance is known from simple geometry and known brightness's not the redshift, although this could be used. We use parallax to determine the distance out to a star or planet. Also, by knowing the type of star we know what brightness it should be at at a given distance. So, we directly measure the distance to the star. If we need to measure greater distances we find what is know as standard candles or cepheid variables who have predictable periods of known brightness and dimness. Find one of those find its brightest or dimmest point, compare that to a cepheid at 1 ly distance and you have the new distance. It is a 1/r^2 thing.

quote:

---

5. Evolution

There is no such thing as evolution man! Why don't we see monkeys in a pre-human stage?
you see a monkey, you see a monkey, not some weird hybrid.

---

Does it really matter if a god created us in an instance or created us through evolution?

quote:

---

6. Dinasours

Sure there might have been some types of animals like that, but they are taking quite a huge leap from a bunch of old bones, look what they're saying now! they say today's birds are the evolved dinosaurs! this is all fantasy man!

The truth is that these "scientists" care more about looking smart, than true science, which in this case is admitting they know JACK SQUAT!

---

The truth is that some people are too blinded by religious ferver and doctorine to accept that other possibilities exist. Such as christians claiming the world is only 10,000 years old, yet when you tell them radio carbon dating and other methods point to an earth on the order of 4 billions years old, they scoff at you and say radio carbon dating is flawed. Yet when the shroud of Turan was examined with radio carbon dating and returned the result that the shroud was at least old enough to have been in existence during the supposed time of christ the christian community embraced the results.

I find that true scientists whatever their personal beliefs, will always seek the truth and whatever that truth is they will not try to alter it even if it goes against their beliefs.
[/b][/QUOTE]

chesty

As for the big bang, I'm familiar with the background radiation that was discovered. I believe this to be a bit of wishful thinking. Sort of like that "mars" rock that contains "life", but that's a whole other topic. Is this a radiation that could be detected from anywhere you look?
If the estimates of the universe is true to be over 10-15 billion years, then our view of is has been a mere microscopical point, sort of like watching 1/2 second of a 3 hour movie, and trying to guess at the lenght of it using the period of time actually watched.
Scientists keep tripping over themselves man!
I was reading on how they were screwed because they found some of the galaxies were actually much older than the entire theoretical lifespan of the universe! back to the drawing board! As far as dark matter, right now they know absolutely nothing as to why what they are seeing is the way it is, so they resort to a "theory" of dark matter, when there might be a less dramatical explanation. The thought that 90% or higher of the mass in the universe is dark matter is a bit preposterous to me.

Right now, scientists are using black holes as a crutch for something they can't explain, like the phenomenon at the centre of galaxies. You realize that if they're right then there is a black hole in the centre of every galaxy! I don't doubt the possibility, because of the relative closeness of stars to each other, but it is quite a leap.

One more thing, when did I bring religion into this? I'm not a religious person, I'm not closeminded either. The honest truth is that religions always try to explain our universe, as so does science, but neither has done a very good job of it. I believe in Jesus, not religion, and you know why I believe in Jesus? because it's easier for me to believe what he says, which all makes sense to me, than to watch scientists trip over themselves constantly just because they don't want to admit they don't have all the answers, that's my beef with them...

------------------
Particle Weapon...UP YOUR ASS!!

Yes you are right it is pretty much a black hole at the center of most active galaxies. Contrary to popular belief they will not gobble up everything within their influence.

Black holes do exist, we have proven their existence, why is that hard to believe? Dark matter, your right it is a theory, but so is the theory of gravitation and quantum theory of mechanics. Yet gravity affects us everyday and the nuclear bomb and reactor are a direct result of quantum theory. So we start with a theory and go from there.

Why is it easier to believe what the Bible says for which there is no proof but your belief that it is true than to believe science when it discovers something new or observes something fantastic, black holes a prime example, they are nothing more than a very well defined explainable creature with proven mathematics.

Yes, scientists make mistakes, revise ideas and theories as new information is obtained, but again why is that a fault? It would be faulty to ignore the scientific facts as they are discovered.

Remember this isn't a pissing contest but a discussion. And I respect your beliefs in your god and faith.

chesty

As to the properties of light being either wave or particle, there are different points to consider...
light does have a mass and can be affected by gravitational force. However, if light has mass then wouldn't there be recoil when we turned on a flashlight? Yet light waves are produced without apparent mass as a consequence by means of nuclear fission (i.e. the sun). So I see the points in both cases.

Dark matter is dark because it doesnt react with light. It does exist. Its gravitational pull keeps the arms of the galaxy spining at a uniform pace instead of the outer part moving slower( like inner planets rotating faster than outer ones).

Light particles or photons are masseless, if they were not they could not be traveling at the speed of light. Yes, they react with gravity, but then, so do all items in the Universe. By what means they react is unkown at this point, but it is postulated that it is through a graviton. Now the simple equation E=mc^2, shows that for any mass it is equivalent to an energy level based on the above equation. (Derived from Special Relativity) Here is the kicker while photons are masseless, they do cause an action reaction effect. That is how solar sails work. Photons are highly reactive with objects with fairly large wavelengths, hence, the more opaque (cloudy) an object the more likely that the photon will not pass through but be reflected or absorbed.

The other question about Schroedinger's Cat is exactly as you put it, if nothing exists until we think about it and observe it, then what created us and our reality, was it a chance happening at the big bang? or was it a race far advanced from ours? Einstein could not except quantum theory even with all its successess, because as he put it, "God does not play dice."

Keep the thoughts coming in, most are excellent.

Based on the hubble deep field picture we know that there a million of other galaxies.

So would it be true that each galaxy is expanding?

Then would it also be true that each galaxy is depended on the others to hold it realitive postion? Sort of a gravatational pull.

If expansion is the case then what is keeping things from pulling apart? What is the fabric that holds things together?

I would beleive that since or galaxy is spinning that it has to expand, but what keeps it together?

I don't know but I am amazed at the picture the hubble has produce.

Thank you, hopefully I remain humble in your presence. I suspect you are much smarter than I.

To answer your question, Gravity holds things together. Think of it as a giant rubberband, it is continually stretching getting ever bigger, if the acceleration is greater than the attracting force of the rubberband, then the rubberband will break and things will continue to expand forever. If however, the rubber band is big enough (massive) then it will halt the expansion of the galaxies and space and can then either be balanced out by the acceleration (steady state Universe) or overcome the acceleration completely and cause a collapse. Does this help?

I used to think that we would be exploring space by know but shit were slow.

I think of space more like you would program a mill.

x,y,z

At this point in time, there is not enough knowledge to understand even a 10th of the physics in the universe.

As far as measuring distance to other spacial objects, redshift is one of the ways to do it, similar to the doppler effect. I don't know if this is a very accurate method of estimating distance, because there are too many variables to measure. (boy, don't you wish you could use Trigonometry in space! would save us all a lot of headaches!)
For example, it could very well be a cosmological redshift, where spacetime itself is actually expanding! therefore giving an erroneous redshift measure.

As far as the background cosmic radiation, what has been detected is a microwave cosmic background that is everywhere. There is no proof that this is a remnant of the big bang. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the possible theory of a big bang. Either way, I don't think it matter, because one could ask what was there before the big bang.
I'm familiar with the theory of a big crunch followed by a big bang, and eventually once again a big crunch, in an endless loop. So the question is, what about the time continuum itself? does it continue to go forward while space collapses on itself repeatedly? or does time stop and renew itself as well?

As far as parallax, I don't have a great understanding of this method, I know that it's our motion compared to the object that is used and we use the background as a reference. My question is, using the background to measure galaxies is irrelevant, because the reference point becomes too far away! and you would still need to use the redshift as well as the different angles.

I don't see gravity as a rubberband. The orbit of the moon is steady, but if you were to artificially push it to a higher orbit, it would still be an orbit, although a slower one because the gravitational pull is weaker and less centrifugal force is needed to maitain the orbit. So far gravity has been tied to magnetism, but just how closely related they are nobody knows. In fact, even magnets are not fully understood, and to top it off, they too have their own gravitational pull!(because they have mass)

------------------
Particle Weapon...UP YOUR ASS!!

The reason the cosmic background radiation is living evidence of the big bang, is that it is at the right temperature, and is uniform only an event like the big bang could have caused this. Just because we had a big bang doesn't mean we will have a big crunch.

The moons orbit is changing daily, it is slowing down to the tidal effect. As it slows down its orbit increases and at some point in the distant future earth will not have a moon nor ocean tides. Also, if you pushed the moon to a higher altitude artificially, you must slow it down or it will fly off since the gravitational force would not be able to overcome the inertial force of the moons radial velocity. Space mechanics my son, a whole nother topic. BTW, it is more correctly referred to as centripital force.

Ok, Chesty, a question for ya. the theory is that 50% of the universe is matter, and the other 50% is antimatter, but they can't find where the antimatter is. What do you think about that? could that be our so called "Dark" matter? and why would it account for 90% of the total mass?

------------------
Particle Weapon...UP YOUR ASS!!

------------------
Particle Weapon...UP YOUR ASS!!

Future one:
10%matter 90%anti matter stuff (WIMPS and stuff?)
Dark matter is something scientists havent experienced, but strongly believe is there. They think they are atomicly different than any particle ever known. WIMPS

quote:

---

Originally posted by Checkmatebloated:
Well what about the beer quality way out there? I would assume the atmosphere is very thin and it would be hard to keep your beer from going flat while watch the Galeaptalops play the Hazonderfelps on planet Talonkon.

---