Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 143 comments are related to the topic:
Secrets of quantum physics.....
Secrets of quantum physics.....
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 143
|
By:
you are mixing up dark energy with dark matter,it is the effect of dark energy that keep the galexies from flying apart,with gravity playing the major roll,i only use the word god as a word to describe dark matter,but Einstein himself and quant.theory both allow for an intelligent force controlling the universe.in fact Albert went even further when saying that "anybody that is serious about studying the workings of the universe will soon discover that without a shadow of doubt there is an intelligent force at play and is controlling,i like to call it a universal god,not the one most people are more accustomed to know about.
|
|
By:
..I have no problem with an intelligent force.....
..but a huge problem with a "God" as it is defined by the religious masses on this planet. |
|
By:
I am of the same mind as yourself,the god the religious believe in is suppose to be all loving and forgiving,the god I believe in is dark energy of the cosmos that controls the universe like clockwork but has no feeling about anybody.
sometimes I think our minds are our god.(if you know what I mean) |
|
By:
I`d be very surprised if God wasn`t an Englishman, and middle class.
|
|
By:
but surprisingly ,from time to time I think about the religious god and try and search for him but always get a no in my answer.
I think that because there is no god someone sometime decided that there was need to invent a god for some reason,and started the ball rolling. |
|
By:
It surprises me somewhat that we don`t call Gods bluff and say we are not prepared to put up with this farce any longer...and stop breeding.
|
|
By:
I suppose the universe had to be the size it is, if we could see past the end of it we would know everything.
|
|
By:
While walking today, in suburbia, I turned a corner and saw a Kestrel attacking a Jackdaw, on the pavement beside a large garden hedge. The Jackdaw was quite large and the struggle protracted. Nature is a terrifying and ghastly thing.
|
|
By:
can zero exist ie no universe no atoms no energy no light etc if the answer is yes then we and everything else doesnt exist
therefore there is this +1 and -1 in equal parts so they balance out just like the dark matter balances out the known universe or the other way nothing can be lost the +1 becomes the -1 there is no ZERO the -1 becomes the +1 you may say where does the +1 come from or how has the +1 become -1 the answer is ZERO cannot exist |
|
By:
brassneck you are getting dark matter and dark energy mixed up here.
Dark matter stops the galaxies flying apart, more mass is needed in the galaxies to keep them together. It is Dark matter that give the galaxies the extra gravity needed to keep the galaxies together. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe getting faster and faster. Einstein was a believer in an intelligent universe, not really a |
|
By:
What if God is the energy that makes up everything?
Science has often tried to exclude 'God' but the more I look at the world the more I see a designer. Just too fantastic to not have or be a Source. Saw a documentary a while ago abour how a robin navigates. It appears to have a sat nav system in its eye!! Maybe God is the Captain and the Ship.. (deep I know..) |
|
By:
dark matter has never being observed.
it was found when some crackpot scientist discovered how to weigh a galaxy,they discovered that the galaxy should not be so heavy,so they call the extra weight in a galaxy dark matter,they are not sure what it is yet.Dark energy is an unknown force that is driving the galaxy to an unknown destination at a faster speed than the universal expansion.(i think).it is also believed that black holes(which they have never seen)is sucking the dark matter to the event horizon of the black holes. SIMPLY MEANS=Something that has never being observed is being sucked in by something that has never being seen at a point that they are not sure exists.  and most scientists say we just don't know what an event horizon is and we can not prove that they exist |
|
By:
What I would love to know how the feck a guy can weight a galaxy(for the first time) with 2 billion stars and planets and then say,"its over weight,must be carrying a bit of dark matter".
 |
|
By:
Last but one New Scientist. The LHC could have found a pentaquark (July - 2 ups, 1 down, 1 charm and 1 anti-charm). Maybe dark matter is composed of macros - dense agglomerations of very many quarks - as dense as neutron stars since they would have no spaces as in atomic nuclei. They would be diminutive, massive and extremely hard to spot (wouldn't shine or interact with incoming light (or most emr). Not food for badgers or foxes. But they could account for the missing mass in the universe without invoking new imaginary particles.
|
|
By:
..if its not food for badgers or foxes then in the universal scheme of things it cant be that important....nope.
|
|
By:
but they need to go back to the start first,i maintain there was no big bang,and my reason is = if all was created in that millisecond it had to include Gravity,and if all the gravity in the universe was confined into a tiny pea size shell nothing would escape because the gravity would hold it together.So if gravity was created at a later time all the energy would have being long gone.
 And don't forget it happened 14 billion years ago and gravity is still holding the universe together,so how the hell did anything get free in the first place. |
|
By:
Actually gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 forces. Isn't it? Though don't jump off something if in you're in a gravity well (you are!), space-time speaking.
|
|
By:
Gravity is the most powerful force in the universe,(well,these black holes are powerful,but they don't know what is in them but it sounds like gravity if they can find a black hole to look in to one)
So if gravity is the most powerful force,was it asleep at the big bang(which is still a theory) |
|
By:
gravity holds the universe together,thats what the science book says.
|
|
By:
..I agree it wasn't a big bang.....more of a release of energy from another universe....perhaps all the accumulated energy that had gathered in a black hole and somehow escaped through a tear in the fabric of time and space caused by the black hole....
..so this starts off the process of a new universe....less big bang....more an escape of energy from one relatively mature universe into the beginnings of s a new one... ..of course this will never explain how the very first universe came into existence. |
|
By:
Basically, they haven't got a Scooby about any of it. They postulate, they theorise, they calculate, they observe. And still it eludes them.
And does any of it really matter anyway? One would have thought that the great minds of the human race would have better things with which to concern themselves than pions and pentaquarks. |
|
By:
Well, weak but long range. The original explosion of the big bang would have massively overcome it initially. All energy and no mass? When energy subsequently converted to mass then it would have started to have influence.
Mass is 'frozen' energy, so to speak. For all the mass in the present universe to be in that intial infinitely small infinitely hot 'nucleus', energy must have been completely predominant. Gravity came into existence after the BB. |
|
By:
And another point I would like to make about the edge of the universe,when the big bang occurred the light of it would be out and running before anything else(einsteins ,nothing travels faster then the speed of light))so light would never be caught,so I think that if it was possible to go the the edges of the universe the light from the big bang would still be leading the race of expansion.
So we are in a big bright ball of light if it was possible to observe the universe from outside,yet nobody but myself has worked this out yet.so I will call this Brassnecks theory number 87.remember where you heard it first.  |
|
By:
...more important things than finding the true nature of things jed??.....the mechanisms and processes that really make things tick????.....
...the details of how even consciousness itself interacts with the supposed solid and material world in which we operate.....which is actuallt stuff just vibrating at different frequencies ..if I was given a one way ticket and was told I could glimpse 5 seconds of the "truth" I think I may take it......yep. |
|
By:
The universe is about 13.8 billion years old. I think we've seen back to about 300 million years (?) thanks to Hubble. Almost all of the earliest galaxies we can see now ceased to exist long ago. Remember we're in space-time, not just 3D space. I get pissed off trying to think of the structure of space-time. I'm a fan of the multiverse. Eternal life/death for all. Hell, I just spalled off 10,000 alternate me's typing this.
|
|
By:
I have worked out that peace comes from within,a person living on his own can be in good form or he can be in bad form from day to day without interacting with other people,this proves that its what we think is how we see OUR world.BRASSNECK theory number 88
|
|
By:
The whole idea of the Big Bang relies on too many unprovable factors, and wild postulations, to have any credence for me. So I'm out.
|
|
By:
yes bodil I agree,and I think someone should consider that perhaps rather that a big bang it could have being two universes banging into each other.just like observing bubbles in a bath,and our universe is just one tiny bubble.
|
|
By:
And we could all be heading down the plug hole.
|
|
By:
I find the whole idea of baryogenesis, on which the Big Bang Theory depends, to be ludicrous and just made up to explain something which is not only inexplicable, but which fundamentally negates all known ideas of the production of matter and anti-matter.
Neither of the two ways in which this could have occurred have been proven to be more likely than the other, or likely in themselves independent of the other. Assumptions have been made without scientific evidence, merely to make current theories fit the Standard Model, which itself rejects the notion of dark matter and thus requires further unscientific distortion to explain current theories. It is essentially a circle of half-truths, and inadequate science. As someone said before on this thread, it is inelegant because it is wrong. |
|
By:
I think the laws of science allow for anybody to chance their arm and come out with some idea and call it a theory.
than it is only a theory and will remain a theory until someone else proves it incorrect. if nobody can prove it incorrect it gains respect and is soon expressed as scientific fact. in other words its up to someone to prove it wrong rather that the guy who started the idea or opinion to prove it correct. |
|
By:
Yes, it's a bunch of bright people stumbling around in the dark but we're getting there. Quantum physics/mechanics is alarmingly demonstrable/provable in the bits we can reach. I know much of the rest is counter-intuitive but given a couple of years chit chat is sure to progress the science. After all, we come up with a couple of dozen unbelieviable conclusions every afternoon.
|
|
By:
...all interesting stuff....and mind blowing....
...would love to be alive in a 100 or 200 years to see what has been discovered.... ...and if the human race is any closer to understanding the true nature of consciousness and our origins...... ...perhaps our originators may even have been in contact to give us a nudge!!!! |
|
By:
brassneck your getting rather confused on this thread and mixing things up.
The galaxies are UNDERWEIGHT from what we can see, so for the galaxies not to tear apart there needs to be more weight. That is dark matter. Secondly dark matter has been observed to a degree from gravitational lensing. |
|
By:
also brassneck gravity is known as a weak force (it might have huge impact on the universe and be very important), but it is very weak.
Eg a very small magnet could pick up a metal pin from the floor even say if held 1 inch of the ground. It breaks the gravitational force of the whole planet earth with ease. So the magnetic force is billions of times stronger than the force of gravity. Also jump in the air, a very small amount of energy again breaks the gravitational pull of the whole earth on you. |
|
By:
Again though maleuk, the standard model does not allow for the existence of dark matter, and it predicts dark energy at levels severely inconsistent with what is actually observable.
|
|
By:
they needed something to answer the theory of the big bang and the expansion,had it occurred as they say everything would have gone out in the millisecond it started,so the had a big problem with everything about it.(in other words there was no big bang)
So after careful consideration the world scientists agreed the theory of dark matter as the glue that sticks galaxies together. if there is no dark matter there was no big bang so it was a must to invent something to prove the big bang.(enter dark matter says somebody in the room) to protect the big bang theory.(so they now have to find a higgs boson to prove this) so they said lets tell everybody we are 90% certain we have found higgs,that will get everybody of our backs,and give the boys a few years work at cern. AS from today the 2 nd September 2015 they still have not found the famous god particle. And its all scientific fillabuster,until they come up with proof. |
|
By:
not right jed, the universe did start approx. 13.8 billion years ago. (wether as a big bang or as someone suggested huge amounts of energy appearing from say another universe via black hole you can argue about)
we know this as the telescopes out there are effectively looking back in time as they see the earliest galaxies in the universe. As we know the universe is expanding we also know the expansion is speeding up. (via the dopler shift in light) as its expanding it therefore must have been smaller yesterday, smaller the day before etc etc, which also means at 1 point it must have been very small indeed, actually going back approx. 13.8 billion years ago. |
|
By:
but you are right jed that there are problems with the standard model.
|
|
By:
there is still much to learn, hopefully over the next few years/decades cern might answer a few of them, and a few geniuses like albert Einstein popping along wouldn't go amiss either
|