Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What We Still Don't Know - Scientific Mysteries

Point number 2, the universe is 14billion years old but 28billion light years across. Since the supposed Big Bang occurred in the centre of the universe, then it makes perfect sense that the light and temperature are evenly distributed at all ends. I can't see the big head scratcher here.

Is the big head scratcher that the matter isn't moving away from the centre at the speed of light; Einstein says it can't and you couldn't see it if it was. This raises a problem if the universe is the defined as the extent of matter; there shouldn't be matter 14 billion light years away from its origin 14 billion years ago.

I don'y know though, I've only read the last few posts.

PS Wikipedia says the universe is all matter and energy, it's 93 billion light years in diameter but 14 billion light years old. So it seems light has moved faster than light or there's a number wrong. I've no idea how you work out the age of the universe.
 
I have a megalodon tooth that is C-dated at 10,000 years old - that's nothing in evolutionary terms. Megs are out there, I really do believe that ( NO crappy Steve altern jokes please!) and there is no scientific reason for them not to be. Oh, and they are NOT the great whites big brother but indeed sub-evolved through a different specio-branch.
 
I have a megalodon tooth that is C-dated at 10,000 years old - that's nothing in evolutionary terms. Megs are out there, I really do believe that ( NO crappy Steve altern jokes please!) and there is no scientific reason for them not to be. Oh, and they are NOT the great whites big brother but indeed sub-evolved through a different specio-branch.

That's nothing, some TA units have older LCpls.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If you like the placebo effect, try the nocebo effect!
 
PigGunner, the Big Bang didn’t occur in the “centre of the Universe”, as you stated. The Big Bang formed the Universe, it didn’t happen inside, and it has no centre. As for 14 + 14 = 28; it would be astonishing if we just happened to be at the centre of the Universe. It’s much more likely that we aren’t and so something else is going on. The 14 + 14 idea refers only to the observable Universe, and not the whole thing (see below).

HB and Onetap, keep in mind that when looking at distant objects we have to take “look back” time into account. For very distant objects we are seeing them where they were many billions of years ago and they have moved much further away since then.

A reasonable way to begin to make sense of this is the so-called current bun model of universal expansion. Imagine being on a current in a current bun and looking at the other currents (it’s magic dough and we can see through it). If the bun was large enough it would look to us as if we were the central current, and as the bun cooked and expanded it would look like we were stationary and the other currents were rushing away from our central position. However, to anyone standing on any current they would see the same thing, i.e. they are stationary and everyone else is moving away from them. Everyone and no one appears to be at the “centre”.

Now consider a number of equidistant currents in a straight line as the dough expands. Rather than the currents moving, as such, it is the space (dough) between them that is expanding and carrying them further apart. This may seem like semantics, but it contains an important point. Given a uniform expansion, each current will see those further away appear to move increasingly faster because the intervening amount of dough between each successive current is expanding. If we say that the magnitude of expansion is 2 (it doesn’t matter about the units in this illustration) then the nearest current moves away at 2, the next 4, the 6 and so on. Remember, though, that it is the dough expanding between *each* of the currents at a uniform rate, i.e. a rate of 2, and not the currents moving as such.

At some point the currents towards the end of the line will appear to move so quickly that they approach and then exceed the speed of light. Of course, anyone standing on those currents will consider themselves to be stationary and think that it is us that are somehow defying the speed of light limit.

There are complications such as the theorised inflation period (as someone else mentioned), but this is pretty much the standard model. It has problems, but solves others.
 
I dont know about the currants but the the one that gives me a headache and starts me twitching and going into a panic attack thinking im going mad and then reaching for the beer bottle and porn (you know it)...is the one with the chicken, the fox and the grain trying to cross the river...

oh that and when the tank track touches floor its stationary but the others are all moving...i just dont get it.
 

Hespera

Old-Salt
Its all a simulation. We are nowt but subroutines in a massively massive sim

It's a fairly accurate analogy, and one that I employed myself last summer (see below).
Philosophy and science overlap and intersect in the most fascinating ways.

"As a matter of fact, the philosophy of perception deals with a concept called epistemological dualism, meaning that what we perceive to be our conscious experience is actually a SIMS-like, virtual reality replica. Leibniz coined the phrase "possible worlds", which has become so popular with science fiction writers, while Skeptical Hypotheses suggest that reality is far different from what we think -- at least we cannot prove that it isn't. The human mind is a most wondrous and, at times dangerous, thing, and we're only beginning to uncover the proverbial tip of the iceberg."

For me one of the greatest mysteries is the brain. There is so much we still do not understand, e.g., science still doesn't know exactly why we dream. There is no consensus what purpose dreaming serves, if any. I am not talking about wacky dream analysis, but theories that address why we, and seemingly all other mammals, dream.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-dream

Great thread, DC. Thanks so much for starting it.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Interesting thing on Radio 4 right now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hz62h

Cosmic inflation latest; Indian space success; Science and language; Wax Venus
Duration:
30 minutes
First broadcast:
Thursday 25 September 2014
BICEP - gravitational waves and dust
One of the biggest scientific claims of 2014 has received another set-back. In March this year, the BICEP2 research team claimed it had found a swirling pattern in the sky left by the rapid expansion of space just fractions of a second after the Big Bang. This announcement was quickly criticised by others, who thought the group had underestimated the confounding effects of dust in our own galaxy. And now, new analysis from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite suggests dust found in our own galaxy may have confounded what was thought to be a universal revelation.

India's Mars satellite enters orbit
India has successfully put a satellite into orbit around Mars, becoming the fourth nation or geo-bloc to do so. Following a few teething troubles with a planned engine burn shortly after launch on 5 November 2013, and a long journey, the Mangalyaan probe has started sending back images of the Red Planet. It is the first time a maiden voyage to Mars has entered orbit successfully and it is the cheapest mission to-date.

Science of language
Professor Steven Pinker talks to Adam Rutherford about the language of scientists and the science of language. He has a new book out, "The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century", discussing how the latest research on linguistics and cognitive science can improve writing.

The Anatomical Venus
Adam visits the Wellcome Collection to see an 18th-Century Florentine Wax Venus - complete with removable abdominal organs. He discusses our preoccupation with death, with Joanna Ebenstein. And finds out if these beautiful, if slightly unnerving, statues were the cutting edge of anatomical learning, or a gory sideshow.
 
Top