|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2001 : 18:59:29 [Permalink]
|
Personally, I count SELF-EDUCATION as being the best education. The folks with degrees must also be self-educated for their degrees to count. Possessing degrees without knowledge would be ridiculous, but it happens. Then there are the folks who get a number of degrees and then coast for the rest of their lives, seldom cracking a book. Senility Express, I call it...
So, education of all kinds counts. And it should never stop.
Blah...blah...blah.....
 ZZZZzzzz...
ljbrs  
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
 |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 16:48:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Beautiful sites. I have saved them all. The photograph of The Galaxy's black hole seen in X-rays is sitting on my desktop as wallpaper. The others will follow. Thank you!
However, all three of the sites' photographs are very beautiful. I am a fan of astronomy at all wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. Then there are dark matter and dark energy (Lambda, Quintessence, etc.) to take into account. However, dark things make terrible images for one's desktop wallpaper...
Delighted you enjoyed them. Am a cosmological FAN too, big time. Your topic-thread would make a perfect clearing house to post and share information, so much is happening at once, these days.  It could be a huge help in catching something noteworthy, that just might slip by. Just for you, ljbrs, if you haven't seen this one already... 
Pretty Neutron/Pulsar
Mmmm... the BB isn't letting me post images, today, shoot! Just found it today, too. You're go'na like it... Since X-rays can't quite make it through our atmosphere, this entire area of astronomy on the extreme edges of the spectrum, has come about with our venture into space based observations, and within my adult lifetime. Its a great time to be alive!
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 18:54:02 [Permalink]
|
NubiWan:
I just accidently deleted an entire post and must begin again. Thank you for the additional site, but evidently I already have it saved, because the powers that be rejected my attempt to save the site.
I have loved astronomy since I was a very little girl (3 years old), when I first saw the night sky. My late (optical physicist) father talked about *infinity* and blew my mind which was attempting to visualize it. I gave up. However, little girls were not permitted outside after dark, so I was left with my imagination and my memories. I now belong to a wonderful astronomy club (and a skeptics club, etc.). So I have been making up for long-lost time ever since.
I particularly love the stuff outside the visual spectrum that we cannot see. I remember when the infrared sky blew my mind when it was first photographed using special cameras. Of course, everything about NASA/JPL/SETI is a favorite of mine.
Thanks again. I am typing this on one of my word processors, just to see if it stops in the middle of my typing as it does on the web. So far, so good. I think that I shall do this more often, and paste it when I am finished.
Well, I am so happy that Skeptic Friends is back online. The folks here are all just wonderful.
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 10:30:30 [Permalink]
|
DogEd posted a meaty super article on the BABB, thanks DE. Had posted a question about monopoles being a problem for the BB theory, earlier...
"The standard big bang theory, coupled with the modern theory of elementary particles, predicts the existence of many superheavy particles carrying magnetic charge-that is, objects that have only one magnetic pole. These magnetic monopoles would have a typical mass 10 to the 16th times that of the proton, or about 0.00001 milligram. According to the standard big bang theory, monopoles should have emerged very early in the evolution of the universe and should now be as abundant as protons. In that case, the mean density of matter in the universe would be about 15 orders of magnitude greater than its present value, which is about 10 to the minus 29th gram per cubic centimeter."
And another question;
"The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?"
In fact every question me raised plus others, are in here. Now, am not saying the BB theory isn't the best model we've got, just that there remains some problems with it. Am just happy me anit alone, and some bright lights are addressing them.
THE SELF-REPRODUCING
INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 09/10/2001 10:51:41 |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 17:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?"
Nobody needs to have given a command to start the Big Bang. The laws of nature did it. The reason astrophysicists consider the Big Bang model is that in order for everything to be coordinated together, the tiny (but exceedingly massive) *singularity* must have been packed together at the beginning.
There are always going to be pieces which do not seem to fit in science. This is the way theories emerge/evolve. One throws out the ideas which do not fit and looks for other solutions which do not necessitate the discarded portions of the theory.
One nice thing about science is that there is peer review where bad ideas get discarded regularly. The Big Bang fits together very well to satisfy most of the questions.
Nobody was necessary to start the big bang. The big bang is much more easily understood without such an extra scientific cause. Otherwise, there would be Big Bang starters ad infinitum. Just because the beginning of the Big Bang is not able to be scientifically measured does not mean that there would be a *somebody* doing it. I do not believe that a *somebody* seems to be a reasonable part of the solution in scientific Big Bang circles.
ljbrs  
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 18:18:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Who gave the command?"
Nobody needs to have given a command to start the Big Bang.
Ah, this is one of those points where I wish I had a greater vocabulary.
I don't believe the original author meant to imply that he was literally asking about a "who". It is just a figure of speech. (Isn't there a word for this?  )
quote:
The Big Bang fits together very well to satisfy most of the questions.
Though you seem to have a much greater grasp of this subject than I, I get the impression that this is not quite accurate. There seems to be some areas that cause the BBT quite a bit of trouble.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 22:16:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't believe the original author meant to imply that he was literally asking about a "who". It is just a figure of speech. (Isn't there a word for this? )
On the mark Tokyodreamer. Geez, ljbrs, hope you didn't think me was trying to bring in some kind of theology here...  "Who" could have been "what." It is the question of what mechanism tiggered the BB, that is the point. You're being a bit literal with a rhetorical convention, me tinks. Still a super article, huh?
quote:
There are always going to be pieces which do not seem to fit in science. This is the way theories emerge/evolve. One throws out the ideas which do not fit and looks for other solutions which do not necessitate the discarded portions of the theory.
Yes, of course, the scientific method at work, and at the extremes, where the remaining questions are being addressed, is where the most excitement and greatest interest, is found IMHO. There are events, which entire theories are overthrown and replaced. Even for a mere wonk, such as me, its fun to watch. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 18:51:07 [Permalink]
|
The word, "Who" (in the English language) happens to refer to a person. *Who created the universe?* means *What person created the universe?* One should watch one's vocabulary in order not to be completely misunderstood.
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2001 : 19:17:49 [Permalink]
|
Theories about a fractal universe, while possibly being true, can never be tested. They are beyond the range of any possible detectors. This is not to say that it could be possible to make better detectors. We are only able to view a small portion of our present universe. If, indeed, as is possibly true, there were a fractal universe, there would not be time enough to measure it to ascertain this. A fractal universe must remain a wonderful theory without any capability for testing. The distances are too daunting.
The most recent tests (BOOMERanG, MAXIMA) so far completed have measured the universe as being *flat*. Therefore, at the present time, there is no measurement (in real time) which would agree with a fractal nature of the viewable universe.
We shall never ever know for certain. Many wonderful hypotheses can never reach fruition. Why? Naturally, because...
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
