• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Dark Matter? Energy?

largepkg said:
Honestly, this is the one struggle I have. Humans tend to think they have the answers to everything. Truth is we don't, and we won't. To believe there isn't a higher power out there that created all this seems very odd to me. As humans and cynics most of you will surely disagree.
Click to expand...

No, I agree. There is so much stuff that we will never have a handle on. However, there may be times where people understand abstract things, but don't know it.
 
largepkg said:
Honestly, this is the one struggle I have. Humans tend to think they have the answers to everything. Truth is we don't, and we won't. To believe there isn't a higher power out there that created all this seems very odd to me. As humans and cynics most of you will surely disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. We will probably never know all there is to know. At the same time, it's mighty interesting to try. Humans seem to have a natural curiosity.

Though I do believe in God, I can certainly see why many don't. I don't particularly like organized religion though. It is a huge double-edged sword.
 
CowPimp said:
I've never heard any credible source suggest that the universe is infinite. Not one. It's not more philosophical, because there is physical and mathematical evidence to support that the universe is finite, but none that I have ever heard of to suggest that it is infinite.
Click to expand...


I can't find the theories I'm referring to that says the universe is infinite. I use to spend hours and hours reading that useless, but interesting crap. Lost all my good bookmarks. :(

But if you check out the major physics forums, they have great long threads debating whether the universe if finite or infinite. No theory has been proven really.

The big bang theory, and general relativity does not prove that the universe is finite.


it's also debatable whether cosmology is philosophy or science. I like to think of it as the fine line between the two. To deem something scientific you must provide proof. How can we prove there's nothing beyond the observable universe? we can't. But to categorize Cosmology as philosophy, isn't point on neither.
 
IMO, we can never know if the universe is finite or infinite.

Something being infinite is beyond the capacity of our brain to comprehend.

And at the same time, it's seams impossible and beyond logic that the universe is bounded. Bounded by what? something must be beyond those boundaries.

The more I think about that, the more it hurts my head.
 
My saying folded over, I think he was descirbing it as a globe. Go back to the dimensions post.
 
i dont know the specifics of how anti particles are created, im sure a google search would find it.

Im not a genius, i just have a couple years of basic physics and math. And spend a lot of time reading forum posts. Phd is my end goal, but its difficult I already have a career, went back to school very late. Its a juggling act.

Regarding God, If there is a god, we couldnt possible ever know anything about it. There are too many different, completley abstract ideas conflicting. The more science and philosophy i study leads me to conclude there is no omnipotent singluar being. I will not go into my reasons as they are lengthy, but briefly, basic premises are mass disagreement between civilizations, the ability of a human with a finite mind to be able to conceive an infinite being. The bible itself has been so convoluted through dozens of translations, based on metaphor, written by people who most likely thought in a completley different manner than modern people. Who know what was originally intended. Ive read numerous examples of how important details were changed to suit the needs of the church at the time. I wont cite references, google is there for anyone wanting to check.

For the record Im an atheist. I waz raised a baptist, around 14 i started to realise this was a farce. Dont tell my mothers side of the family, devote christians. Seems as im older my dad and I have drawn similar conclusions. He was also raised in the church.

I reject all religion, and I reject any personaly spirituality regarding a singular, or polytheistic concious higher being. I do accept the abstract idea of 'god' as a mass energy field or conciousness, think the force from starwars. Quantum physics lends to this idea. The field may everywhere at everytime and everything simulataneous, and could be thought of as god, but i dont beleive it is self aware and manipulates our day to day lives.

Enough about god, i dont want this to turn into a my unprovable idea vs your unprovable idea. You believe in god? I believe i can turn invisible. Prove me wrong. See how this would end in a circular argument with no resolution.

Back to goandykid, if you find this really interesting i can suggest some simple books to understand the theory. What grade are you in?


My spelling is horrible, please disregard.
 
Last edited:
I'm a senior in HS, it was an interest but not anything I'll be studying in college most likely. I'll be enlisting after this year. This was something I was interested in but not very involved, if there's a simple (stress on the simple) book(s) you could recommend I'd be all for reading them.
 
Thanks a lot, I'll check it out. I never said that though, is that pertaining to something earlier?
 
No that more or less refereing to an ex girlfriend I had who would repeat she was too stupid to learn something, she proved herself wrong after it took 2 years of me coaxing. I just heard this again from a new girl im seeing and it makes me nuts how people doubt themselves.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Oh, I feel ya. Maybe it's jsut a lack of interest on their part? Can't force that
 
viet_jon said:
I can't find the theories I'm referring to that says the universe is infinite. I use to spend hours and hours reading that useless, but interesting crap. Lost all my good bookmarks. :(

But if you check out the major physics forums, they have great long threads debating whether the universe if finite or infinite. No theory has been proven really.

The big bang theory, and general relativity does not prove that the universe is finite.


it's also debatable whether cosmology is philosophy or science. I like to think of it as the fine line between the two. To deem something scientific you must provide proof. How can we prove there's nothing beyond the observable universe? we can't. But to categorize Cosmology as philosophy, isn't point on neither.
Click to expand...

The big bang theory, which is very widely accepted at this point, suggests that the universe is constantly expanding. Something that is infinite cannot expand. I will take your word for it though. Perhaps I will poke around some of the physics forums. Maybe they have evidence just as compelling for the converse.

I will disagree that cosmology is not a science though. Information is gathered, hypotheses are made, and studies are done to prove or refute their accuracy. For example, dark matter was proven to exist earlier this year, which was a theory based upon mathematical equations for the expansion of the universe (Another bit of proof that the universe is finite, coincidentally):

http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/darkmatter.asp
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

This was based on theory and then tested via experiment for accuracy. Sounds like a science to me.
 
CowPimp said:
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos..._bbs_sr_1/002-5258062-1941633?ie=UTF8&s=books

The people on Amazon seem to think that this is a more "layman's version" of The Elegant Universe with a little fresh info added to boot.
Click to expand...


CP, i was a aware of that book, but like you said since its a dumbed down version I havent read it. While i repsect greene, it appears string theory is failing out of favor. Not so much that its wrong, but its not testable, and wont be anytime in the near future. Its bordering on philosphy.
 
string theory?
 
nsimmons said:
CP, i was a aware of that book, but like you said since its a dumbed down version I havent read it. While i repsect greene, it appears string theory is failing out of favor. Not so much that its wrong, but its not testable, and wont be anytime in the near future. Its bordering on philosphy.
Click to expand...

this is what I meant. Cosmology as a whole isn't philosphy, but anything beyond observable, I think falls under philosophy more than science.
 
string theory are what these books mentioned cover, the 1st half is the basics of relativity, QM, what we've been discussing. The second have tries to explain the fundamental particles.

Atoms are made of electrons neutrons and protons, what are these made out of? Particles called quarks, what are quarks made of?

String theory suggests little rubber bands that vibrate like a violin string, different frequencies of vibration cause the strings to represent different particles. Problem is these strings only work if our universe has more spacial dimensions, upto 16-21 in some theories. These extra dimensions are sort if invisible. Like how the 3rd dimension is invisible to the ant walking on the ball.

This is cutting edge stuff i cant hardly grasp, people have called it physics 21st/22nd century physics discovered by accident. Actually one person (cant remember his name) stumbled across a formula in a old old math text (couple hundred years?) Basically the author said "this formula is interesting and may hold future value". I believe this lead to the kaluza-klein theory of higher dimensions.

Excuse my facts, my copy of the elegant universe is at a friends and i cant remeber specifics.

Problem is we cant test these theories as we are unable to harness enough energy in todays particle accelerators. Congress cancelled plans for a super collider a few years ago, hopefully the hadron collider in switzerland will shed some light. But still i dont think they are powerful enough. Maybe in 100 years.
 
viet_jon said:
this is what I meant. Cosmology as a whole isn't philosphy, but anything beyond observable, I think falls under philosophy more than science.
Click to expand...


I to am an empiricist over rationalist, but sometimes it takes a little faith thata theory will prove out. Faith for an atheist, i know i know..haha. Little bit.

Duh forgot the basics "Theory of everything"

Correct, string theory is an attempt to merge the 4 fundamental forces, Electro-magnetic, strong nuclear(h-bomb), weak nuclear(radiation) and gravity.

The standard model in quantum mechanics merges all but gravity. Einsteins gravity theory is correct but incomplete, it doesnt work on sub microscopic levels. Deep down all 4 forces are the same thing, the work now is to figure out how gravity fits in. Einstein died failing to make it fit, and its been 50+ years and no luck so far.
 
Interesting aside, myth busters is covering some tesla inventions tonight.

If i hear anyone say marconi invented the radio again im going to kick them in the nuts
 
nsimmons said:
string theory are what these books mentioned cover, the 1st half is the basics of relativity, QM, what we've been discussing. The second have tries to explain the fundamental particles.

Atoms are made of electrons neutrons and protons, what are these made out of? Particles called quarks, what are quarks made of?

String theory suggests little rubber bands that vibrate like a violin string, different frequencies of vibration cause the strings to represent different particles. Problem is these strings only work if our universe has more spacial dimensions, upto 16-21 in some theories. These extra dimensions are sort if invisible. Like how the 3rd dimension is invisible to the ant walking on the ball.

This is cutting edge stuff i cant hardly grasp, people have called it physics 21st/22nd century physics discovered by accident. Actually one person (cant remember his name) stumbled across a formula in a old old math text (couple hundred years?) Basically the author said "this formula is interesting and may hold future value". I believe this lead to the kaluza-klein theory of higher dimensions.

Excuse my facts, my copy of the elegant universe is at a friends and i cant remeber specifics.

Problem is we cant test these theories as we are unable to harness enough energy in todays particle accelerators. Congress cancelled plans for a super collider a few years ago, hopefully the hadron collider in switzerland will shed some light. But still i dont think they are powerful enough. Maybe in 100 years.
Click to expand...

I never really understood that part. Extra dimeansions curled up in loops? 10-13 of them? mind boggling, but interesting.

the ant analogy walking on a wire does make it a bit easier to picture. But multiple dimensions like that? it's just bizarre.
 
viet_jon said:
I never really understood that part. Extra dimeansions curled up in loops? 10-13 of them? mind boggling, but interesting.

the ant analogy walking on a wire does make it a bit easier to picture. But multiple dimensions like that? it's just bizarre.
Click to expand...

Yeah its hard to see it, i dont really get it. Like i said the math works. So the question is, is string theory an accurate representation of reality, or an interesting exercise in abstract geometry
 
nsimmons said:
I to am an empiricist over rationalist, but sometimes it takes a little faith thata theory will prove out. Faith for an atheist, i know i know..haha. Little bit.

Duh forgot the basics "Theory of everything"

Correct, string theory is an attempt to merge the 4 fundamental forces, Electro-magnetic, strong nuclear(h-bomb), weak nuclear(radiation) and gravity.

The standard model in quantum mechanics merges all but gravity. Einsteins gravity theory is correct but incomplete, it doesnt work on sub microscopic levels. Deep down all 4 forces are the same thing, the work now is to figure out how gravity fits in. Einstein died failing to make it fit, and its been 50+ years and no luck so far.
Click to expand...

isnt it also called the theory of everything because, ' everything ' can be deduced with this formula? from memory, I think string theory says that everything is essentially made of the same thing, whether atoms, neutrons, protrons, electrons, quarks etc. but they appear different because they vibrate at different wave lengths?

ah man, it's been too long since my interest in cosmology faded.

simmons, you sound like you know a decent amount of this stuff.

What's your opinion on the universe being either infinite, or finite?

that's a question i've been wondering about since I was a kid. It always gets me thinking, for hours sometimes. From my logic, neither one can be true. But one of them has to be.
 
Last edited:
Well from what ive read, i would like to think that our universe is one of many, like bubbles or soap forming in a pool, like expand and shink and pop, collide and give rise to larger bubbles.

I think our universe is finite, but arranged in a way you wouldnt be able to leave it. Travel far enough in one direction and you'll return to start, like walking around the earth. When people say the universe is expanding, they misunderstand. The galaxies are not moving away from each other like 2 cars driving away from each other. The space between them is expaning, as if the 2 cars were sitting still but the road between them expanding.

From this view point, the galaxies wont fly out of the universe as they arent actually moving.

If the earth started to expand, newyork an london would appear to be moving away from each other but infact the space between them is moving. No matter how far they 'move' they wont leave the earth.

This always reminds me of a story i heard in philosophy class when people ask whats past the edge of the universe.

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
So when people say whats past the edge of the universe, the answer is more universe.
 
viet_jon said:
this is what I meant. Cosmology as a whole isn't philosphy, but anything beyond observable, I think falls under philosophy more than science.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but it's different because it is something that we may be able to test for in the future. Just because we can't now doesn't mean anything. Philosophy is always going to be centered around something that depends on circumstances, opinion, frame of reference, etc. You will never be able to scientifically determine if a philosophy is correct or not, but you may be able to test for the validity of something like string theory in the future.
 
CowPimp said:
I understand your point, but it's different because it is something that we may be able to test for in the future. Just because we can't now doesn't mean anything. Philosophy is always going to be centered around something that depends on circumstances, opinion, frame of reference, etc. You will never be able to scientifically determine if a philosophy is correct or not, but you may be able to test for the validity of something like string theory in the future.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. We probably will be able to test string theory in the future. Right now, it stands as un-proven science, that is, mathematically correct. Eventually, scientists might/should be able to test something that small. But it is something right in front of us, and that if we had adaquete equipment, we would be able to test it, thus science.

but,

I think, in determining if our universe is finite or not, will always be philosophy. No mater how far we are able to look, it is always possible to see past that point plus one more unit. It's kind of like asking, what's the biggest number known? Whatever X says, you can always add one more. What we cannot see, nor test, I think cannot be deemed as science.
 
CowPimp said:
The big bang theory, which is very widely accepted at this point, suggests that the universe is constantly expanding. Something that is infinite cannot expand. I will take your word for it though. Perhaps I will poke around some of the physics forums. Maybe they have evidence just as compelling for the converse.
Click to expand...


yes, the big bang theory does suggest that the universe is expanding. I'm not sure, but I think it's that red shift thing that proves that. Anyway, i agree, something that expanding cannot be infinite,

but,

That theory is describing our observable universe, and not the universe as a whole. The dictionary's definition is something like, everything in existance. We can't see everything, thus we cannot know.


there are newer theories and studies, that describe the whole universe as multiple expanding universes like ours. Simmons touched on it, with the bubble analogy. From memory, the universe that we see, is one of many, on many different membranes. You can picture it as a ballon, with many dots on it. Our observable universe is one of the many dots, and the balloon, is one of many membranes. As you blow up the balloon, the dots expand, and move further away from each other without ever touching.

i throw the word membrane around like I'm an expert. Really though, I havn't been able to grasp that idea yet. Same with extra dimensions. They both hurt my head.
 
viet_jon said:
yes, the big bang theory does suggest that the universe is expanding. I'm not sure, but I think it's that red shift thing that proves that. Anyway, i agree, something that expanding cannot be infinite,

but,

That theory is describing our observable universe, and not the universe as a whole. The dictionary's definition is something like, everything in existance. We can't see everything, thus we cannot know.


there are newer theories and studies, that describe the whole universe as multiple expanding universes like ours. Simmons touched on it, with the bubble analogy. From memory, the universe that we see, is one of many, on many different membranes. You can picture it as a ballon, with many dots on it. Our observable universe is one of the many dots, and the balloon, is one of many membranes. As you blow up the balloon, the dots expand, and move further away from each other without ever touching.

i throw the word membrane around like I'm an expert. Really though, I havn't been able to grasp that idea yet. Same with extra dimensions. They both hurt my head.
Click to expand...

Interesting way of looking at it.
 
The crazy thing is that we, ourselves in our 3 pound brains can store so much information, and that our imaginations can take that and build countless universes inside of themselves...then you get into things like the universal mind and such and all of the physics go out the door because how is it possible for our little minds to be so productive? Men have built there own worlds with their minds...it's just as fascinating as the universe is the little universes inside our minds...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

myCATpowerlifts
DARK MATTER PROVEN! also G.R. PROVEN
Replies
10
Views
2K
LAM
LAM
Arnold
The Dark Side Of Dan Bilzerian
Replies
3
Views
870
Arnold
Arnold
Arnold
Terminator: Dark Fate - Official Trailer (2019)
Replies
0
Views
4K
Arnold
Arnold
Back
Top