PDA

View Full Version : Mystery 'dark flow' extends towards edge of universe



mike black
11-16-2009, 05:56 PM
I'll give you a moment to collect yourselves. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427345.000-mystery-dark-flow-extends-towards-edge-of-universe.html) Yes, there is a possibility we can "see" universes next door.


SOMETHING big is out there beyond the visible edge of our universe. That's the conclusion of the largest analysis to date of over 1000 galaxy clusters streaming in one direction at blistering speeds. Some researchers say this so-called "dark flow" is a sign that other universes nestle next door.

Last year, Sasha Kashlinsky of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and colleagues identified an unusual pattern in the motion of around 800 galaxy clusters. They studied the clusters' motion in the "afterglow" of the big bang, as measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The photons of this afterglow collide with electrons in galaxy clusters as they travel across space to the Earth, and this subtly changes the afterglow's temperature.

The team combined the WMAP data with X-ray observations and found the clusters were streaming at up to 1000 kilometres per second towards one particular part of the cosmos (The Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol 686, p L49).

Many researchers argued the dark flow would not turn up in later observations, but now the team claim to have confirmed its existence. Their latest analysis reveals 1400 clusters are part of the flow, and that it continues to around 3 billion light years from Earth, a sizeable fraction of the distance to the edge of the observable universe (arxiv.org/abs/0910.4958). This is twice as far as seen in the previous study.

The dark flow appears to have been caused shortly after the big bang by something no longer in the observable universe. It has no effect today because reaching across this horizon would involve travelling faster than light.

One explanation for the flow would be the gravity of a huge concentration of matter, but this is very unlikely. Within the standard big bang picture, massive cosmic structures were "seeded" by random quantum fluctuations, so overall, matter should be spread evenly.

There could be an exotic explanation. Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, thinks the flow is a sign of a neighbouring universe. If the tiny patch of vacuum that inflated to become our universe was quantum entangled with other pieces of vacuum - other universes - they could have exerted a force from beyond the present-day visible horizon (see "Nosey neighbours").

Yet despite the new findings, the existence of the dark flow remains disputed. Charles Bennett, principal investigator of WMAP says the cluster analysis is not statistically significant. "There is no evidence for the large-scale dark flow, using all of the best data available."
Nosey neighbours

Was our universe once entangled with a neighbour? The observation of "dark flow" in galaxy clusters was predicted in 2006 by Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues. She proposes that the effect occurs because our universe was once influenced by neighbouring domains (arxiv.org/abs/0810.5388).

Mersini-Houghton reasoned that if a force exerted by other universes squeezed ours, it could generate a repulsive effect that would impede the shrinkage of matter into clusters but not leave an imprint on smaller scales. "This skews the distribution of lumps so they are not the same in all directions," she says. "There is a preferred direction - the dark flow."

She also predicted in 2006 that there should be two "holes" - regions with fewer galaxies than expected. Sure enough, there does appear to be a hole - the so-called "cold spot" identified by the WMAP probe. The hole is a very large region of space where the afterglow is cooler than average. However, its cause - and even existence - is disputed, and Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis remains controversial.

Jason California
11-16-2009, 06:08 PM
I am going to have to read this a couple times.

batmanbooyah
11-16-2009, 06:34 PM
isn't "universe" basically a word for "everything" so there's two everythings?

mike black
11-16-2009, 06:41 PM
isn't "universe" basically a word for "everything" so there's two everythings?

Yes, and there's probly more than that.

Jason California
11-16-2009, 06:44 PM
We can see the effect of something that used to be in our universe but has since left. It left everything and went into another everything.

batmanbooyah
11-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Yes, and there's probly more than that.

well DUH!

i always believed that our "universe" was indeed very tiny. Actually I think we're inside another organism but as long as i can get some steak, sex, and comic books, i could care less how big/small shit is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_J5rBxeTIk

Captain Sensation
11-16-2009, 06:46 PM
scary...

mike black
11-16-2009, 06:53 PM
well DUH!

i always believed that our "universe" was indeed very tiny. Actually I think we're inside another organism but as long as i can get some steak, sex, and comic books, i could care less how big/small shit is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_J5rBxeTIk

It's more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0).

Pick The System!
11-16-2009, 07:14 PM
This is interesting. I need to read this a couple more times and look into some other articles.

batmanbooyah
11-16-2009, 07:24 PM
It's more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0).

well shit man, you can sell me anything with a british accent.

mike black
11-16-2009, 08:05 PM
well shit man, you can sell me anything with a british accent.

I've actually always wondered why all the shows on American channels have British experts, and ones on British stations use American experts.

Generic Poster
11-17-2009, 06:23 AM
If the Chingar Alliance gains control of the Dark Flow, all is lost!

thatguyfromsyracuse
11-17-2009, 06:27 AM
Between this and the LHC being sabotaged from the future, we really do live in interesting times.

Jonny Z
11-17-2009, 06:28 AM
all this talk of shrinkage and holes has gotten me a little worked up

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 06:28 AM
I've actually always wondered why all the shows on American channels have British experts, and ones on British stations use American experts.

the british one upped us by having an american sounding ASIAN expert! :o

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
11-17-2009, 06:35 AM
Very interesting.

Boris the Blade
11-17-2009, 06:35 AM
*looks through telescope*

They're all wearing funny hats.

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 06:45 AM
Within the standard big bang picture, massive cosmic structures were "seeded" by random quantum fluctuations, so overall, matter should be spread evenly.

Man, are they just making this stuff up?

mike black
11-17-2009, 07:13 AM
the british one upped us by having an american sounding ASIAN expert! :o

Well, he is American. He was just born in Japan. I believe he holds dual citizenship IIRC.

Also, he ice skates. Which is all the more reason why Michio Kaku is the fucking man.

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm455/teeveesfrank/michiokaku-2.jpg

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 07:21 AM
Coooool.

Thanks for always posting these, Mike!

Mark4myself
11-17-2009, 07:32 AM
This is just...wow...VERY wow....

Now there is hope that my missing remote control is simply in another universe!

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 07:36 AM
Well, he is American. He was just born in Japan. I believe he holds dual citizenship IIRC.

Also, he ice skates. Which is all the more reason why Michio Kaku is the fucking man.

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm455/teeveesfrank/michiokaku-2.jpg

he's the brian boitano of physics!

mike black
11-17-2009, 07:39 AM
he's the brian boitano of physics!

And our best hope for averting the coming robot apocalypse.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 07:47 AM
And our best hope for averting the coming robot apocalypse.

:lol:

i watched part one of that series you linked to last night, i need to research it more. A lot of what they're saying doesn't seem to....jive. Like, it makes sense in their head, but i don't think we have the actual capacity to test for these types of things yet.

though the sheer vastness of the universe (which i think is really just as big as our imagination can conceive) really puts my problems of finding cheap JIFF peanut butter into perspective.

DrMachine
11-17-2009, 07:50 AM
a very meh article...

I've been dubious of new scientist since they declared "Darwin was Wrong" in an article that had nothing to do with Darwin's theories.

It's long been know that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and so the universe extends out farther than what we can perceive. This doesn't seem to add anything new.

Ryan F
11-17-2009, 07:52 AM
a very meh article...

I've been dubious of new scientist since they declared "Darwin was Wrong" in an article that had nothing to do with Darwin's theories.

It's long been know that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and so the universe extends out farther than what we can perceive. This doesn't seem to add anything new.

Yeah, what is up with New Scientist?

I read a book by an editor there, 13 Things that Don't Make Sense, and a lot of it was contrarian b.s. presented in a very selective way (there's a long chapter about the benefits of homeopathy, for instance).

DrMachine
11-17-2009, 07:55 AM
Yeah, what is up with New Scientist?

I read a book by an editor there, 13 Things that Don't Make Sense, and a lot of it was contrarian b.s. presented in a very selective way (there's a long chapter about the benefits of homeopathy, for instance).

I honestly don't know, they've really lost credibility and seem to have been becoming more and more sensationalistic in their writing over the past few months/year. Anyone interested in learning about science should probably avoid new scientist as a believable source.

andrew french
11-17-2009, 07:57 AM
Man, are they just making this stuff up?

this line got me thinking the same thing; still, this idea of a universe visibly grinding all up on ours is awesome

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:00 AM
Does this mysterious "dark flow" prove that god is a woman?

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:03 AM
:lol:

i watched part one of that series you linked to last night, i need to research it more. A lot of what they're saying doesn't seem to....jive. Like, it makes sense in their head, but i don't think we have the actual capacity to test for these types of things yet.

though the sheer vastness of the universe (which i think is really just as big as our imagination can conceive) really puts my problems of finding cheap JIFF peanut butter into perspective.

It's not, actually. It's somewhere around 92 billion light years across, and is around 13.7 billion years old (at nearest calculations.) The universe isn't infinite.

To further put that in perspective, in the amount of time it would take to cross from one extreme edge to the other traveling at the speed of light you could grow 20 Earths (to it's current age) one after the other.

It's massive, but it's not immeasurably large.

The thing that you have to remember is that these are all theories. They are all very good guesses, and they have a basis in reality - but they are theories. (In example, we observe something and then are able to use calculations to make determinations on various measurable attributes like size, age, energy output, etc.)

I would definitely recommend watching that whole show, as it's a pretty solid primer on M-Theory and the next step in our quest for a Theory of Everything.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:09 AM
It's not, actually. It's somewhere around 92 billion light years across, and is around 13.7 billion years old (at nearest calculations.) The universe isn't infinite.

To further put that in perspective, in the amount of time it would take to cross from one extreme edge to the other traveling at the speed of light you could grow 20 Earths (to it's current age) one after the other.

It's massive, but it's not immeasurably large.

The thing that you have to remember is that these are all theories. They are all very good guesses, and they have a basis in reality - but they are theories. (In example, we observe something and then are able to use calculations to make determinations on various measurable attributes like size, age, energy output, etc.)

I would definitely recommend watching that whole show, as it's a pretty solid primer on M-Theory and the next step in our quest for a Theory of Everything.


I doubt that we'll ever find some sort of theory of everything. but how can you quantify something that has no limit? I know all the things you wrote there, and everytime i hear a theory on how bit the universe is, i kind of laugh. i mean, the universe is everything....and to say everything has a limit...then what's beyond that? a petri dish? anywho, i'm guessing the universe is eleventy billion times bigger than we imagine it to currently be.

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:09 AM
A lot of what they're saying doesn't seem to....jive. Like, it makes sense in their head, but i don't think we have the actual capacity to test for these types of things yet.

In physics, as in any good science, new hypotheses are based on falsifiable conclusions supported by testable data.

DrMachine
11-17-2009, 08:11 AM
In physics, as in any good science, new hypotheses are based on falsifiable conclusions supported by testable data.
madness!

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:15 AM
In physics, as in any good science, new hypotheses are based on falsifiable conclusions supported by testable data.

right, i don't think we can test the tests that are testing the hypothesis though. all these testes are distracting!

Rosemary's Baby
11-17-2009, 08:21 AM
I would definitely recommend watching that whole show, as it's a pretty solid primer on M-Theory and the next step in our quest for a Theory of Everything.
Could you post the link for this? I'd like to check it out.

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:23 AM
I doubt that we'll ever find some sort of theory of everything. but how can you quantify something that has no limit? I know all the things you wrote there, and everytime i hear a theory on how bit the universe is, i kind of laugh. i mean, the universe is everything....and to say everything has a limit...then what's beyond that? a petri dish? anywho, i'm guessing the universe is eleventy billion times bigger than we imagine it to currently be.

I think there are some good logical fallacies in your statements above that bear pointing out.


how can you quantify something that has no limit?

Here, you are begging the question: you assume that the universe has no limit in the first place and so you think you can't quantify it.


and everytime i hear a theory on how bit the universe is, i kind of laugh

This is an "argument from personal incredulity": because you don't understand the math (I know I sure don't), say, you assume that it can't be understood.


I mean, the universe is everything....and to say everything has a limit...then what's beyond that?

A combo of one and two, here, with a little nugget for some wrestling over semantics. And I'd point out that the study given above is seeking to answer your question, so I'm not sure why you would raise it against these theories.

In turn, and to be fair, since I don't really know what's what too well as regards physics, and may espouse what I read in articles such as this one, I could be accused of the fallacy of arguing from authority.

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:27 AM
right, i don't think we can test the tests that are testing the hypothesis though.

Hm. The data tests the hypothesis, so I'm not sure what you mean.

thatguyfromsyracuse
11-17-2009, 08:30 AM
The universe is awesome.

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:32 AM
I doubt that we'll ever find some sort of theory of everything. but how can you quantify something that has no limit? I know all the things you wrote there, and everytime i hear a theory on how bit the universe is, i kind of laugh. i mean, the universe is everything....and to say everything has a limit...then what's beyond that? a petri dish? anywho, i'm guessing the universe is eleventy billion times bigger than we imagine it to currently be.

First, we can "see" the edge of the universe. Currently. We can determine where it is based on the color of light we can perceive. That helps us to determine how long ago (and how far away,) an event is. A short explanation can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOjRLXK7aoA

What you have to understand is that the universe is not infinite. Now, without sounding too religious or science-fiction-y, you could refer to "Creation" or "The Multiverse" as the "infinite" space that our universe rests in. That's what M-Theory is trying to explain - if our universe is everything, but is finite, then where is it? What is outside of it?

(That's why I was saying to watch the video, they explain what the current "best" theory is. Essentially, we're hanging in 11th dimensional space, floating on a membrane bumping up against other universes.)

The "Theory of Everything" is sort of misleading if you're not really familiar with what they're talking about (again, this is explained in the video.) Essentially, a Theory of Everything unifies Quantum Mechanics (the study of the very small - quarks, electrons, neutrons, etc.) with General Relativity (the study of the very large - the movement of the planets, solar systems, universes, black holes, etc.) Previously, any attempt to come up with a theory that explained both fields of physics wouldn't work. No one could figure out why they didn't jive.

Until we came up with String Theory. Which was later discovered to be slightly incorrect. When the math was rerun (and I'm really simplifying this story,) we were able to determine that there would have to be 11 dimensions of space (Depth, Height, Width, Time, plus 7 more inperceivable dimensions) for us to reconcile the two disciplines.

I'm doing a terrible job of explaning this, but I can tell you - watch that first video I linked. It explains all of this very simply. All I can tell you is throw out what you think the universe is, because it's not quite right.

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:34 AM
Could you post the link for this? I'd like to check it out.

The first video I linked is broken into 10 parts that explain all of this. I'm pretty sure that the one I linked was the first part.

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:36 AM
I think there are some good logical fallacies in your statements above that bear pointing out.



Here, you are begging the question: you assume that the universe has no limit in the first place and so you think you can't quantify it.



This is an "argument from personal incredulity": because you don't understand the math (I know I sure don't), say, you assume that it can't be understood.



A combo of one and two, here, with a little nugget for some wrestling over semantics. And I'd point out that the study given above is seeking to answer your question, so I'm not sure why you would raise it against these theories.

In turn, and to be fair, since I don't really know what's what too well as regards physics, and may espouse what I read in articles such as this one, I could be accused of the fallacy of arguing from authority.

Thank you, Jeff. I'm waaaaaay too fucking hung over to explain all of this right now.

Rosemary's Baby
11-17-2009, 08:37 AM
The first video I linked is broken into 10 parts that explain all of this. I'm pretty sure that the one I linked was the first part.

Ah, okay. I can't watch video at work so I wasn't sure. Thanks.

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:38 AM
Ah, okay. I can't watch video at work so I wasn't sure. Thanks.

Not a problem. I believe that one special runs on the Science Channel on a fairly regular basis, so I would highly recommend checking to see their late night line up (usually they run a block of three shows from 8 - 11, and then rerun them again from 11 - 1.)

thatguyfromsyracuse
11-17-2009, 08:40 AM
I think I've said this before, but I love this stuff. That being said, sometimes it's a bit much to try to wrap your mind around. Our universe is something, if it were possible to do, is something you would eventually come to the end of, but would have no idea what's beyond it. Seeing the farthest reaches of what we know exists is one thing, but something beyond all of that? Just fucking weird.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:41 AM
Hm. The data tests the hypothesis, so I'm not sure what you mean.

basically what i mean is, "GO SCIENTISTS GO WOOO!!!!" i love new theories, new hypothesis, new everything. Though I hate it when i hear "we have FINALLY" or "we are close to discovering the final solution to the...." whatever problem they have. There's no finality to the universe, is my thinking.

mike black
11-17-2009, 08:44 AM
basically what i mean is, "GO SCIENTISTS GO WOOO!!!!" i love new theories, new hypothesis, new everything. Though I hate it when i hear "we have FINALLY" or "we are close to discovering the final solution to the...." whatever problem they have. There's no finality to the universe, is my thinking.

A finality, though, doesn't mean anything beyond "we understand how it works", or "we understand what it is".

An example would be gravity. We understand how it works, we know how to "beat it" - that doesn't change anything about gravity though, and there are always new explanations of how we can use it - or expand our knowledge.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:44 AM
I think I've said this before, but I love this stuff. That being said, sometimes it's a bit much to try to wrap your mind around. Our universe is something, if it were possible to do, is something you would eventually come to the end of, but would have no idea what's beyond it. Seeing the farthest reaches of what we know exists is one thing, but something beyond all of that? Just fucking weird.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Source_Wall.jpg

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 08:45 AM
None of this don't make no sense.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:46 AM
A finality, though, doesn't mean anything beyond "we understand how it works", or "we understand what it is".

An example would be gravity. We understand how it works, we know how to "beat it" - that doesn't change anything about gravity though, and there are always new explanations of how we can use it - or expand our knowledge.

i thought i read that what we believe to be gravity, isn't exactly what it is? Or some shit....we discovered gravity, but its implications, definition, and connection to the other forces of the universe is constantly changing.

essentially everything we believe to be true, will probably change, and its very exciting.

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:49 AM
basically what i mean is, "GO SCIENTISTS GO WOOO!!!!" i love new theories, new hypothesis, new everything. Though I hate it when i hear "we have FINALLY" or "we are close to discovering the final solution to the...." whatever problem they have. There's no finality to the universe, is my thinking.

Word.

I don't think most individual scientists think that science can ever be exhaustive, though. You just make your theories more robust (while removing the chaff, where "chaff" is getting things wrong) as more of the world is explored through scientific inquiry.

Dogma assumes final solutions and posits Truth-with-a-capital-"T." Thereby, Dogma stifles inquiry.

And how come we never get anymore Comics remixes from you? I think of Bishop saying, "ootz ootz ootz," all the time.

DrMachine
11-17-2009, 08:53 AM
basically what i mean is, "GO SCIENTISTS GO WOOO!!!!" i love new theories, new hypothesis, new everything. Though I hate it when i hear "we have FINALLY" or "we are close to discovering the final solution to the...." whatever problem they have. There's no finality to the universe, is my thinking.

I've never seen those phrases (as written) used in scientific literature, by actual scientists.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:54 AM
Word.

I don't think most individual scientists think that science can ever be exhaustive, though. You just make your theories more robust (while removing the chaff, where "chaff" is getting things wrong) as more of the world is explored through scientific inquiry.

Dogma assumes final solutions and posits Truth-with-a-capital-"T." Thereby, Dogma stifles inquiry.

And how come we never get anymore Comics remixes from you? I think of Bishop saying, "ootz ootz ootz," all the time.

i argue with people sometimes that science is somewhat similar to religion, but if i get into that again, a dozen of you will crucify me! HI OH!

i should start doing those again, but i keep wondering if i'm pissing off the "eyes of the comic industry" or whatever bendis calls joe quesada hahaha


i still think my crowning moment was this:

(that's the one with the queen homage, right? I can't see the image, just the link thanks to a firewall at work hah!)

http://www.hervatski.com/pictures/ultimatexmenpage1.gif

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 08:56 AM
i argue with people sometimes that science is somewhat similar to religion, but if i get into that again, a dozen of you will crucify me! HI OH!

i should start doing those again, but i keep wondering if i'm pissing off the "eyes of the comic industry" or whatever bendis calls joe quesada hahaha


i still think my crowning moment was this:

(that's the one with the queen homage, right? I can't see the image, just the link thanks to a firewall at work hah!)

http://www.hervatski.com/pictures/ultimatexmenpage1.gif

fuck i might have deleted the images?

Jef UK
11-17-2009, 08:59 AM
But religion already claims to have all the answers. In a nutshell: "God did it." Dogma stifles inquiry and is opposed to the object of science.

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:02 AM
i thought i read that what we believe to be gravity, isn't exactly what it is? Or some shit....we discovered gravity, but its implications, definition, and connection to the other forces of the universe is constantly changing.

essentially everything we believe to be true, will probably change, and its very exciting.

Previously, gravity was an observable force, but we didn't understand what it was. Now we know it's a curvature in space time that attracts smaller bodies to larger ones. Like this:

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpg

Think about it like this - stretch out a bed sheet and put a bowling ball in the middle. Then take an orange and put it on the edge of the sheet. Watch what happens. The bending of "spacetime" attracts the orange towards the bowling ball. This is gravity.

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 09:03 AM
But religion already claims to have all the answers. In a nutshell: "God did it." Dogma stifles inquiry and is opposed to the object of science.

Stop! Things are going so well...

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:04 AM
But religion already claims to have all the answers. In a nutshell: "God did it." Dogma stifles inquiry and is opposed to the object of science.

Exactly. Religion presents a view of existence that is definite and unchanging. Science simply attempts to understand why existence looks and acts the way it does.

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 09:05 AM
Previously, gravity was an observable force, but we didn't understand what it was. Now we know it's a curvature in space time that attracts smaller bodies to larger ones. Like this:

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpg

Think about it like this - stretch out a bed sheet and put a bowling ball in the middle. Then take an orange and put it on the edge of the sheet. Watch what happens. The bending of "spacetime" attracts the orange towards the bowling ball.

So the bowling ball is the moon? Is Earth the moon's bowling ball? Madness!

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 09:06 AM
Exactly. Religion presents a view of existence that is definite and unchanging. Science simply attempts to understand why existence looks and acts the way it does.

He did say somewhat after all.......

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:06 AM
So the bowling ball is the moon? Is Earth the moon's bowling ball? Madness!

The bowling ball is Roseanne Bar and the Orange is Tom Arnold.

Rosemary's Baby
11-17-2009, 09:08 AM
Previously, gravity was an observable force, but we didn't understand what it was. Now we know it's a curvature in space time that attracts smaller bodies to larger ones. Like this:

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpg

Think about it like this - stretch out a bed sheet and put a bowling ball in the middle. Then take an orange and put it on the edge of the sheet. Watch what happens. The bending of "spacetime" attracts the orange towards the bowling ball. This is gravity.

I just watched an episode of Nova on black holes and they explained gravity like this, which was new to me. Totally blew me away.

RyanP
11-17-2009, 09:08 AM
Stop! Things are going so well...

You should have known that threads are only allowed to go well for so many pages. There's a law about it, I think it's called Zevads law of not ending well...

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 09:09 AM
The bowling ball is Roseanne Bar and the Orange is Tom Arnold.

Poor Tom :cry:

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:10 AM
I just watched an episode of Nova on black holes and they explained gravity like this, which was new to me. Totally blew me away.

It's really the best way to explain it. Otherwise people just assume "what goes up, must come down", which isn't necessarily true - what goes up might keep going up if there is a big enough piece of matter above it.

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:10 AM
Poor Tom :cry:

And he's still trying to recover. :?

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 09:12 AM
But religion already claims to have all the answers. In a nutshell: "God did it." Dogma stifles inquiry and is opposed to the object of science.

i understand. but there are examples in even the catholic faith where certain teachings have changed over the years, it just took centuries. Though, dogma is different. if they don't have dogma, they aint got shit to go on. i guess its closely related to constants in ahhhh fuck it, oontz oontz oontz!

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 09:13 AM
Previously, gravity was an observable force, but we didn't understand what it was. Now we know it's a curvature in space time that attracts smaller bodies to larger ones. Like this:

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpg

Think about it like this - stretch out a bed sheet and put a bowling ball in the middle. Then take an orange and put it on the edge of the sheet. Watch what happens. The bending of "spacetime" attracts the orange towards the bowling ball. This is gravity.

right, i know. but even gravity changes, based upon new observations. wasn't it once a strong force, but is now a weak one or something? I can't think right now, lack of coffee, oontz oontz oontz!

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 09:17 AM
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c280/LisaR654/conan.gif

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:21 AM
right, i know. but even gravity changes, based upon new observations. wasn't it once a strong force, but is now a weak one or something? I can't think right now, lack of coffee, oontz oontz oontz!

Gravity isn't changing. You're kind of veering off into other theories, but essentially the further things get from each other, the weaker gravity becomes (like a spaceship leaving Earth.)

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 09:28 AM
Gravity isn't changing. You're kind of veering off into other theories, but essentially the further things get from each other, the weaker gravity becomes (like a spaceship leaving Earth.)

right im not arguing that gravity doesn't exist. what I mean is how we believed it interacts with other forces in the universe, and it's place in physics, etc. has changed. which to me is amazing. hell in the future we might discover that gravity doesn't indeed exist, but is instead an interaction of other forces, or whatever, in the universe, etc. etc. and its pretty exciting.

mike black
11-17-2009, 09:36 AM
right im not arguing that gravity doesn't exist. what I mean is how we believed it interacts with other forces in the universe, and it's place in physics, etc. has changed. which to me is amazing. hell in the future we might discover that gravity doesn't indeed exist, but is instead an interaction of other forces, or whatever, in the universe, etc. etc. and its pretty exciting.

No, our concept of how gravity held the universe together has always been the same.

And yes, gravity is nothing more than an observable side-effect of other forces in the universe.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 09:48 AM
No, our concept of how gravity held the universe together has always been the same.

And yes, gravity is nothing more than an observable side-effect of other forces in the universe.

yes, we discovered the forces of gravity many many moons ago, but its exact makeup has changed drastically over the years, that's what i'm saying. throw in quantum gravity and how they're trying to tie together general relativity and quantum mechanics.

edwardmblake
11-17-2009, 11:29 AM
So the bowling ball is the moon? Is Earth the moon's bowling ball? Madness!

More like Blue Marble Madness.

CapnChaos
11-17-2009, 12:49 PM
Does the most commonly accepted multiple universe theory negate chaos theory?

When most people think of multiple universes, they picture an infinite number of universes, each with tiny differences between them based on some small changes. But chaos theory posits that the smallest change can result in wildly differing outcomes.

So if chaos theory is correct, the more likely multiverse outcome would seem to be the universes with drastically differing outcomes, even to the point of having differing laws of time and physics.

batmanbooyah
11-17-2009, 12:51 PM
Does the most commonly accepted multiple universe theory negate chaos theory?

When most people think of multiple universes, they picture an infinite number of universes, each with tiny differences between them based on some small changes. But chaos theory posits that the smallest change can result in wildly differing outcomes.

So if chaos theory is correct, the more likely multiverse outcome would seem to be the universes with drastically differing outcomes, even to the point of having differing laws of time and physics.

i guess if there's an infinite amount of universes, then you can find say, a hundred trillion universes that are only SLIGHTLY different than our own, while a hundred billion zillion other ones are so drastically different that it'd make you cream your little superman underpants.

DrMachine
11-17-2009, 12:59 PM
No, our concept of how gravity held the universe together has always been the same.

And yes, gravity is nothing more than an observable side-effect of other forces in the universe.

that's actually what gravity is

mike black
11-17-2009, 01:10 PM
that's actually what gravity is

That's what I'm saying.

Big McLargeHuge
11-17-2009, 06:27 PM
That's what I'm saying.

Are you? ARe YoU!!