Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Slartibartfast wrote:I don't believe in the big bang. for one, it defies conservation of energy, but you could just argue that the laws of physics were different back then.
But still, if the universe isn't infinite in time both ways, what was here before the big bang?
Natsilicious wrote:Well dear,the LITTLE I do know about science is that it is not so objective as you claim it to be.
You are using other people's views to create your own and even now, knowing that you know a more about astronomy and physics have not given a figure to how many stars are in the sky. How do you know that the sources that you use are accurate in estimating the number of galaxies and star systems? (a 'hypallage' or something...using the term loosely) you even said it yourself...(Very often what we think we're seeing is not necessarily true. )
Certain things have to be directly observed in order to obtain a near accurate estimation. I'm sure there is not a pattern to how many stars are in one place... and discovery of black holes is a totally different argument... and since u mentioned that , just a correction. you cannot discover something that you are already directly observing.
![]()
Natsilicious wrote:no sivakami, science still isn't very objective. Scientist use paradigms to achieve answers...this is in no way an objective pursuit of knowledge so therefore it doesn't aim to falsify but confirm theories etc...
For example, u just said :"You have a hypothesis H. If H were true, using logic, scientists deduce that they should be able to observe a,b and c. ....." you see, there is a standard procedure for retrieving information in your view; it guides how that evidence it collected and how it should be analyzed and explained.
Can it then be seen as objective??..
Natsilicious wrote:Come on sivakami, we both know that science doesn't only follow 'logic' and further more logic means conformity to laws. Subjectivity.
And scientists aren't all that eager to falsify claims because they might ruin their reputation/credibility because of fear of being wrong. I'm sure not every scientist is as passionate as you are. Some are just in it for the money. and you know that's the truth.
JP wrote:The universe is infinite, the amount of matter is not.
That is, the universe extends infinitely far in every direction (theoretically obviously) but matter simply occupies an ever-increasing "sphere" of existence within the universe. Matter (and time) was created, for all intents and purposes, in the big bang, and has been expanding - from a singularity - ever since.
Therefore, the logical problems you present with regards to infinity, assuming I have it right, need no longer apply.
But haven't recent studies indicated that the universe may be contracting, not expanding, as previously assumed?
JAZPgh wrote:But haven't recent studies indicated that the universe may be contracting, not expanding, as previously assumed?
However, surely this occurence would contradict Hubble's Law which states that the velocity of a body is proportional to the distance it has travelled - the constant of proportionality being the Hubble Constant. This is saying that the rate of expansion is increasing.
So surely there can be no such thing as a 'flat' cosmology?
(I don't mean to provoke an infinite number of posts about the competency of the exam boards - I'm sure that mundane babble has something on that.)
about the universal expansion theory.. the thing is .. the galaxies themselves aren’t moving at all... its the "space" between them that’s getting bigger.. for some reason space is expanding, galaxies are being pushed farther and farther apart by the space between them.. so it would appear that a "property" of space is to expand. which is really weird no?...
then gravity over powered the expansion and slower it down ..
so i guess, one day, the universe will be thing cold dark place... everything will be so far apart, stars will burn out because of thermal equilibrium ...UNLESS.. gravity some how overpowers ………....and this could go on for a while...
. u said something about the universe collapsing in on itself.. there was a theory, Big Collapse theory, that said that eventually the universe will collapse in one itself.. and that because on this time out go backwards.. so u would live again in billions of years and do everything ur doing now, only backwards.. that’s so messed.. but im petty sure that it was disproved awhile ago….. but it was an interesting idea...
anyone here thinking of going into cosmology or astronomy? Or already is ?
Hubble's finding that when stars are too far away they begin to contain a constant Red-Shift despite whether they are moving toward us or away from us
I have hread much about the ‘expanding universe’ but not about ‘expansion as a property of space’. But maybe that’s because I haven’t really looked for it.
hey!.. is that so?... humm.. I always thought that anything moving away from a given point would be red-shifted )if looked at from the point) because it is moving away .. you know .. the whole Doppler effect. So if something was moving closer to the given point, it would be blue shifted. I didn’t know that when starts are too far away they give off re-shifted wave spectrums regardless of whether they are moving away or not.. i wonder why that is.. Or am I interpreting that the wrong way?
I think i heard somewhere that interstellar dust clouds in space cause us to see celestial bodies as red-shifted because the distort the light we receive from them ... maybe that’s one explanation, although i doubt it..
JAZP wrote:
But havent recent studies indicated that the universe may be contracting not expanding as previously assumed ?
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users