Comments on: Brain Makeover #11: The Universe. http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brain_makeover_11_the_universe Rooting for Citizen Scientists! Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:47:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ian Nelson Linnell http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3643 Ian Nelson Linnell Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:02:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3643 Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state Then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started--wait... The Earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, We built a wall (we built the pyramids). Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery that all started with the Big Bang (bang)! Also, there is no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe; it (or, rather, one Planck time after the Big Bang) is just the earliest point we can observe. The jury is not in, however, on whether or not the universe actually began with the big bang; and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying to you. Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started–wait…

The Earth began to cool,
the autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids).
Math, science, history,
unraveling the mystery
that all started with the Big Bang (bang)!

Also, there is no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe; it (or, rather, one Planck time after the Big Bang) is just the earliest point we can observe. The jury is not in, however, on whether or not the universe actually began with the big bang; and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying to you.

]]> By: Ian Nelson Linnell http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3554 Ian Nelson Linnell Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:02:48 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3554 Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state<br>Then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started--wait...<br><br>The Earth began to cool,<br>the autotrophs began to drool,<br>Neanderthals developed tools,<br>We built a wall (we built the pyramids).<br>Math, science, history,<br>unraveling the mystery<br>that all started with the Big Bang (bang)!<br><br>Also, there is no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe; it (or, rather, one Planck time after the Big Bang) is just the earliest point we can observe. The jury is not in, however, on whether or not the universe actually began with the big bang; and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying to you. Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started–wait…

The Earth began to cool,
the autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids).
Math, science, history,
unraveling the mystery
that all started with the Big Bang (bang)!

Also, there is no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe; it (or, rather, one Planck time after the Big Bang) is just the earliest point we can observe. The jury is not in, however, on whether or not the universe actually began with the big bang; and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying to you.

]]> By: Ian Nelson Linnell http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3555 Ian Nelson Linnell Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:58:33 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3555 Presumably, your first question is asking how the universe can accelerate when it's already going at light speed. Well, it always has been going at superluminal (faster than light) speeds since the origin. Although special relativity prevents any subluminal particle from reaching luminal or superluminal speeds, general relativity (which applies wherever there is acceleration) shows that there is no speed limit for spacetime. It's not the galaxies that are flying apart; rather, it's the space between the galaxies that are expanding.<br><br>"At what speed expand the diameter?"--what? Are you asking at what speed the diameter is changing? We don't even know the diameter of the universe (because it's greater than 13.7 Gly), and besides: it's impossible to determine absolute motion; only relative motions can be detected.<br><br>I don't get what you're asking in the third question at all. Can you elaborate a little more on that?<br><br>Also, I looked at that blog you linked to, and most of it was either a misunderstanding of the theory, or a deliberate straw-man. If that's your best shot at falsifying the Big Bang theory, I'm disappointed. Presumably, your first question is asking how the universe can accelerate when it's already going at light speed. Well, it always has been going at superluminal (faster than light) speeds since the origin. Although special relativity prevents any subluminal particle from reaching luminal or superluminal speeds, general relativity (which applies wherever there is acceleration) shows that there is no speed limit for spacetime. It's not the galaxies that are flying apart; rather, it's the space between the galaxies that are expanding.

“At what speed expand the diameter?”–what? Are you asking at what speed the diameter is changing? We don't even know the diameter of the universe (because it's greater than 13.7 Gly), and besides: it's impossible to determine absolute motion; only relative motions can be detected.

I don't get what you're asking in the third question at all. Can you elaborate a little more on that?

Also, I looked at that blog you linked to, and most of it was either a misunderstanding of the theory, or a deliberate straw-man. If that's your best shot at falsifying the Big Bang theory, I'm disappointed.

]]> By: Ian Nelson Linnell http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3556 Ian Nelson Linnell Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:46:06 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3556 Because that's not their job--the experimental physicists are the ones that validate these hypotheses. Theoretical physicists put hypotheses forward and the experimentalists test them. Because that's not their job–the experimental physicists are the ones that validate these hypotheses. Theoretical physicists put hypotheses forward and the experimentalists test them.

]]> By: Ian Nelson Linnell http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3557 Ian Nelson Linnell Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:44:56 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3557 That was actually published by Victor Stenger, among others, in a scientific paper (Philo 9, no. 2 (2006): 93-102). Another interesting observation is that the total energy content of the universe is zero (because potential and kinetic energy cancel out). That was actually published by Victor Stenger, among others, in a scientific paper (Philo 9, no. 2 (2006): 93-102). Another interesting observation is that the total energy content of the universe is zero (because potential and kinetic energy cancel out).

]]> By: Luis Biarge http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-3331 Luis Biarge Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:02 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-3331 I'm against Universe expansion: For example a question: - The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? At what speed expand the diameter (radius x 2)? also: - If near universe is the future of far universe and with many times more separation: How is it possible that near are many more stars and galaxies? This and more, also doubts, proofs and hypothesis in http://bigbangno.wordpress.com Thanks. I’m against Universe expansion:

For example a question: – The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? At what speed expand the diameter (radius x 2)?

also: – If near universe is the future of far universe and with many times more separation: How is it possible that near are many more stars and galaxies?

This and more, also doubts, proofs and hypothesis in http://bigbangno.wordpress.com

Thanks.

]]> By: Luis Biarge http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-4502 Luis Biarge Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-4502 I'm against Universe expansion: For example a question: - The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? At what speed expand the diameter (radius x 2)? also: - If near universe is the future of far universe and with many times more separation: How is it possible that near are many more stars and galaxies? This and more, also doubts, proofs and hypothesis in http://bigbangno.wordpress.com Thanks. I’m against Universe expansion:

For example a question: – The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? At what speed expand the diameter (radius x 2)?

also: – If near universe is the future of far universe and with many times more separation: How is it possible that near are many more stars and galaxies?

This and more, also doubts, proofs and hypothesis in http://bigbangno.wordpress.com

Thanks.

]]> By: Einar coutin http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-2994 Einar coutin Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:50:36 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-2994 How come hypothesis on Theoric Physics do not require actual experiments. They just require an interpretation of what we are limited to observe from this distant point and then a bunch of brain power, and sweat goes into mathematics to validate that. C p.annf erby- i.y cyv (Bry. naoy lapy. ,pcyy.b cb Ekrpat) How come hypothesis on Theoric Physics do not require actual experiments. They just require an interpretation of what we are limited to observe from this distant point and then a bunch of brain power, and sweat goes into mathematics to validate that. C p.annf erby- i.y cyv (Bry. naoy lapy. ,pcyy.b cb Ekrpat)

]]> By: Einar coutin http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-4501 Einar coutin Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:50:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-4501 How come hypothesis on Theoric Physics do not require actual experiments. They just require an interpretation of what we are limited to observe from this distant point and then a bunch of brain power, and sweat goes into mathematics to validate that. C p.annf erby- i.y cyv (Bry. naoy lapy. ,pcyy.b cb Ekrpat) How come hypothesis on Theoric Physics do not require actual experiments. They just require an interpretation of what we are limited to observe from this distant point and then a bunch of brain power, and sweat goes into mathematics to validate that. C p.annf erby- i.y cyv (Bry. naoy lapy. ,pcyy.b cb Ekrpat)

]]> By: Alan Cordeiro http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2009/05/brain_makeover_11_the_universe/comment-page-1/#comment-2268 Alan Cordeiro Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:36:26 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=565#comment-2268 I have an idea about how this might be possible. If every particle and every charge in the universe has an equal and opposite particle or charge somewhere else to balance it out, then the net total of the universe is still zero, the same as prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang separated opposite charges on a very large scale, probably with each pair splitting in opposite directions. Think of how a sine wave is zero at the origin, then has a positive peak in one direction and a negative peak in the opposite direction. Most of the visible universe is matter, not antimatter. Perhaps the explanation for this is that the antimatter went into other dimensions that are not visible to us. In any event, I suspect that it all balances out in the end. I have an idea about how this might be possible. If every particle and every charge in the universe has an equal and opposite particle or charge somewhere else to balance it out, then the net total of the universe is still zero, the same as prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang separated opposite charges on a very large scale, probably with each pair splitting in opposite directions. Think of how a sine wave is zero at the origin, then has a positive peak in one direction and a negative peak in the opposite direction.

Most of the visible universe is matter, not antimatter. Perhaps the explanation for this is that the antimatter went into other dimensions that are not visible to us. In any event, I suspect that it all balances out in the end.

]]>