All Things Space

[MARTIAN]

No one answered my question...

depends if you are protected by a suit or encapsulated. i would imagine a solitary being floating in space would not live long enough for blood to flow to your caulk

 

[Drytoast]

What has me confused after watching about 100 space documentaries is this;

According to popular theory, the universe was created by an event called the Big Bang. Which originated from a singularity. After which, it is now discovered that the universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate.

Yet there is no "middle" of the universe. No place that says, "this is where everything used to be"

I've read theories as to why this is, but it still baffles me.

 

[MARTIAN]

What has me confused after watching about 100 space documentaries is this;

According to popular theory, the universe was created by an event called the Big Bang. Which originated from a singularity. After which, it is now discovered that the universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate.

Yet there is no "middle" of the universe. No place that says, "this is where everything used to be"

I've read theories as to why this is, but it still baffles me.

as you can tell from my previous post, this is the kind of shit that shuts my brain down. Im sure some astrophysicists have already answered this and attempted to put it in what they imagine is layman terms.

in the course of you're endless documentary viewing have you developed an opinion on the multi-verse theory ?

 

[andnowweknow]

yeah, whenever i attempt to understand these types of "breakthroughs" , I'm left with more questions than answers. Math has never been my strong suit, so naturally theoretical physics is well beyond my comprehension

I have a huge problem with the fact that math in general is used to explain a bunch of very important concepts about the universe. It's interesting but I'm not entirely comfortable believing theoretical anything...it's usually the best we've got but I remain skeptical about pretty much anything not tested or proven via observation. Some of the theoretical math models are based on many many premises, any one of which, if wrong, totally fucks the entire equation...we've all been through that chestnut in math growing up where if you miss by one number in the middle of a long problem, it all goes to shit by the end.

 

[andnowweknow]

What has me confused after watching about 100 space documentaries is this;

According to popular theory, the universe was created by an event called the Big Bang. Which originated from a singularity. After which, it is now discovered that the universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate.

Yet there is no "middle" of the universe. No place that says, "this is where everything used to be"

I've read theories as to why this is, but it still baffles me.

honestly, it probably baffles you because the likelihood of the big bang theory being correct is astronomically low, no pun intended. Maybe it's just human all around arrogance, but our inability to accept we're still WAY far away from understanding the bigger picture of the universe is just staggering. In 100 years, we will look back on this time and our understanding of the "way things are" just as we today look at the turn of the 19th century.

Science, in it's theoretical models, comes up with things like "Dark Matter" to explain your problem here...and here is what they say about dark matter..."it's something we can't see, we can't detect...but we know it's there"...lol, ok, or maybe your premises are fucked up? What do you think is more likely?

At the end of the day, dark matter and black holes might be very real, the fact they are taken as scientific fact in general is a bit disconcerting.

 

[MARTIAN]

I have a huge problem with the fact that math in general is used to explain a bunch of very important concepts about the universe. It's interesting but I'm not entirely comfortable believing theoretical anything...it's usually the best we've got but I remain skeptical about pretty much anything not tested or proven via observation. Some of the theoretical math models are based on many many premises, any one of which, if wrong, totally fucks the entire equation...we've all been through that chestnut in math growing up where if you miss by one number in the middle of a long problem, it all goes to shit by the end.

I agree, using math based formulas and projections in an attempt to rationalize a hypothesis seems dishonest to me, but I would never be able to argue with them.

the smartest men in the world practice theoretical physics. and the majority of testable hypotheses at CERN are theoretical, yet multiple tests are coming to fruition

 

[Gene Tunney]

If scientists didn't come up with something (theories), they would probably receive even less funding as it is. We won't know anything until we actually go there.

 

[andnowweknow]

I agree, using math based formulas and projections in an attempt to rationalize a hypothesis seems dishonest to me, but I would never be able to argue with them.

the smartest men in the world practice theoretical physics. and the majority of testable hypotheses at CERN are theoretical, yet multiple tests are coming to fruition

well, in a 100 years, it would surprise me if a bunch of theoretical concepts currently accepted by mainstream science didn't have a LOT wrong with them, despite some of them being correct.

 

[KOQ24]

I'm still waiting to see evidence of a black hole existing outside mathematical formulas, namely some sort of direct observation. I know I heard somewhere scientists thought they were getting close to that...but still no dice. Seeing a specific object actually disappear would be helpful to such a bizarre conceptual space phenomena.

Then you havent looked hard enough


M87 galaxy in the Virgo cluster (Supermassive Black Hole at its Center)

Hubble

Hubble

X-ray

 

[Drytoast]

as you can tell from my previous post, this is the kind of shit that shuts my brain down. Im sure some astrophysicists have already answered this and attempted to put it in what they imagine is layman terms.

in the course of you're endless documentary viewing have you developed an opinion on the multi-verse theory ?

Well one way they try to explain the expansion of the universe. Is to think of the universe as a balloon, and if you draw galaxies on the balloon and then inflate the balloon, you will notice all matter expanding away from each other.

But then I say, "but even that balloon has a centre"...

As for multiverse theory...one thing at a time. Lol.

 

[MARTIAN]

Well one way they try to explain the expansion of the universe. Is to think of the universe as a balloon, and if you draw galaxies on the balloon and then inflate the balloon, you will notice all matter expanding away from each other.

But then I say, "but even that balloon has a centre"...

As for multiverse theory...one thing at a time. Lol.

if you are constantly blowing the balloon up does it still have a centre?

Canadian, Australian or from the UK? you're not American

 

[MARTIAN]

Then you havent looked hard enough


M87 galaxy in the Virgo cluster (Supermassive Black Hole at its Center)

Hubble

Hubble

X-ray

do they know if its their interruption of a black hole or just empty "space"

im too lazy to look it up?

 

[Drytoast]

if you are constantly blowing the balloon up does it still have a centre?

Canadian, Australian or from the UK? you're not American

Canadian.

And yes regardless of how big it gets the balloon has a centre.

 

[KOQ24]

why is space so cold?

No material to generate, transport & capture heat,except for stars & Galaxies & Planets/Moons,which are tiny blimps in space.

 

[MARTIAN]

well, in a 100 years, it would surprise me if a bunch of theoretical concepts currently accepted by mainstream science didn't have a LOT wrong with them, despite some of them being correct.

of course, even Einsteins theory if relativity has been denounced by the scientific community due to neutrino acceleration shown in testable models at in the LHC, and that theory was the basis of astrophysics for the better part of a century.

thats the beauty of science. as it stands almost nothing is absolute

 

[MARTIAN]

Canadian.

And yes regardless of how big it gets the balloon has a centre.

Im not referring to size, Im referring to constant expansion

 

[Drytoast]

My beef with black holes...

They say light can't even escape its gravitational pull. That nothing can. However, multiple photos claimed to be super massive black holes show case two emitters emitting radiation from the black hole.

How does that work?

 

[MARTIAN]

My beef with black holes...

They say light can't even escape its gravitational pull. That nothing can. However, multiple photos claimed to be super massive black holes show case two emitters emitting radiation from the black hole.

How does that work?

I may be wrong , but doesnt Hawking state that radiation can be omitted from black holes

 

[Drytoast]

Im not referring to size, Im referring to constant expansion

If everything started in the same place, and the travelled away from where it used to be, away from everything else...should that leave a very obvious void which would indicated the centre?

If we can predict the path of galaxies moving forward it should lead us to predict where they were.

I guess I still look at the Big Bang as an explosion, which sent how they say you should look at it as. But that's the rub. It all starts from a singularity, a single point. Where was that point?

 

[KOQ24]

do they know if its their interruption of a black hole or just empty "space"

im too lazy to look it up?

They tracked the movement of the jet stream,which is a by-product of a black hole consuming matter.

They also tracked colder gas pulsating out of the center with the X-ray telescope