[KlassWar]

More non-provable, ridiculous nonsense from the 'space industry'! Every preposterous utterance is dafter than the one before - but hey, at least it keeps the 'research grants' ( ) coming!! Jobs for life - that's what it's all about squire, jobs for life. 'Very momentous indeed'!

Is this a troll post? Unlike some things astrophysicists say, this isn't some sort of arcane gibberish. We all know that because of relativity the further away you look on an astronomic scale the further back in time you go, yadda, yadda yadda. Until you hit background radiation, presumably the limit of the observable. Looks like they've been able to push that boundary even further and found actual proof of the Big Bang. Kickass.

[Americanroyalty]

But in a nutshell my philosophy is this: there are three things to which mankind is destined never to discover the definitive answers - the universe (its extent and what's at its extremity), the cerebral functioning of the human brain, and what there is after our demise.

Finally something substantive but flawed thinking. Obviously this thread is about how we just got one step further to figuring out the Universe. Our understanding of the brain is constantly being advanced. Just do some cursory research on how far we've come in the past century and you'll understand. And we already know what happens after our demise our body begins to decompose and is broken down by various micro organisms. Your unknowable questions seem pretty knowable to me.

Oh and how are you doing that banging head against the wall thing? It doesn't show up on my list of smilies.

[benpenguin]

That is a picture, AR. I think its from my favorite Hong Kong IT forum! (Chinese equivalent of 4chan)

[Americanroyalty]

That is a picture, AR. I think it from my favorite Hong Kong IT forum! (Chinese equivalent of 4chan)

Ah I see that clears it up. Fox should steal it, it'd be a nice addition.

[Noelnada]

Oily, perhaps you have an alternative theory about the universes creation?

I'm skeptical too with the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the universe was "created". It seems to me that it does too conveniently match our ingrained monotheist cultural background.

Now, i'm not sure that i have read, seen or even understood clearly all the factual evidences that are surrounding us or presented to us by scientists about the nature of reality. But i'm glad people keep working hard to accumulate more knowledge and a better understanding.

Myself i'm more concerned about the short-term survival of our species or the material and political possibilities to create a sustainable civilization, preserving the fruits of all this hard work in the scientific field.

[OllytheBrit]

Astronomy is a science where there are no experiments, only observations. Observational science is still science. Theories are created based on observations, and these theories make predictions which are later investigated. Whether they turned out to be accurate or not helps validate or invalidate the theory.

Oh stop trying to dress it up as something it isn't or you'll come across as being even dumber than you have already!

[OllytheBrit]

Is this a troll post? Unlike some things astrophysicists say, this isn't some sort of arcane gibberish. We all know that because of relativity the further away you look on an astronomic scale the further back in time you go, yadda, yadda yadda. Until you hit background radiation, presumably the limit of the observable. Looks like they've been able to push that boundary even further and found actual proof of the Big Bang. Kickass.

If I could make any sense of that bizarre ramble I'd reply to it!

[OllytheBrit]

Finally something substantive . . .

but flawed thinking.

Obviously this thread is about how we just got one step further to figuring out the Universe. Our understanding of the brain is constantly being advanced.

Surgically yes, but I'm talking about how it actually works ie controls our vital signs/functions, and how thought processes control our motor functions.

Just do some cursory research on how far we've come in the past century and you'll understand.

Since I'm not referring to your interpretation (as I've just said above) I'll decline the suggestion.

And we already know what happens after our demise our body begins to decompose and is broken down by various micro organisms.

Well yes, we all know that!! Duh! I mean the next step after the soul leaves the body - heaven? hell? that sort of stuff?

Your unknowable questions seem pretty knowable to me.

Well that's probably because you're smarter than me!

Oh and how are you doing that banging head against the wall thing? It doesn't show up on my list of smilies.

Find a smiley site - there are plenty of them - left-click and copy 'properties', paste the URL between [img]and[/img], and Bob's yer uncle. I've got a nice collection of in MS Word for my convenience. But I digress. (well he did ask Olly. Oh yes, so he did!). I can tell from the tenor of your post that you're still not convinced, so I offer an example of what I posited earlier, apropos 'Why Mars?':

Any thoughts on that? If it were possible to steer a space vehicle through millions of miles/light years/wha'evah (and if you believe that you'll believe anything! ), what would be the chances of it reaching Mars without incident, such as being hit by an asteroid; or it's almost at the Red Planet, the undercarriage is down, but unexpectedly a black hole suddenly opens up and vehicle falls into it?

[OllytheBrit]

I'm skeptical too with the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the universe was "created". It seems to me that it does too conveniently match our ingrained monotheist cultural background.

Now, i'm not sure that i have read, seen or even understood clearly all the factual evidences that are surrounding us or presented to us by scientists about the nature of reality. But i'm glad people keep working hard to accumulate more knowledge and a better understanding.

Myself i'm more concerned about the short-term survival of our species or the material and political possibilities to create a sustainable civilization, preserving the fruits of all this hard work in the scientific field.

One day, when the penny drops, there will be more of us!

[KlassWar]

If I could make any sense of that bizarre ramble I'd reply to it!

Nothing happens instantly in space-time: Physical phenomena (gravitation, electromagnetism, etc) propagate through spacetime at the speed of light.

As a result, there's no such thing as a universal timeframe: When you look outward in space, to far-away regions, the light you see coming from them has spent a long time traveling towards us. We observe distant regions of space and so on as they were when the light they emitted left them.

The further away you look, the further back in time (relatively to our timeframe) you observe. At some point you hit background radiation, a byproduct of the early stages of the Universe. Apparently they've managed to stretch the boundary a bit further or just plain analyze background radiation better, and what they've found is consistent with the Big Bang Theory.

[Tschaggatta]

The further away you look, the further back in time (relatively to our timeframe) you observe.

This holds only if the cosmic inflation theories are valid (classic Bing Bang theory is not the trend any more).

But let's suppose for a moment that the cosmic inflation models holds.
Then what you just said and what populist physics repeat is not correct for many reasons, with two of them to be the most important:
1) There is not back/past in time. This is an illusion. Time is just a dimension. You can solve the relativity equations using meters or miles to measure time. Mathematically there is no problem at all;
2) The duration of Time units or to put it correctly the measurement units of Time were not always the same since Time dimension has been created and expanded. What exactly you see then when observing galaxies far away?
And something else. The curvature of TimeSpace does it allow the observation of radiation patterns without affecting them?

To the initial post of the topic I would like to answer that it is a pity that people do not want to understand how modern science works.
But I have also to mention that proposed physics theories are not just based on observations.
This is totally wrong. They are based on the interpretation of the observation and they cannot be seen outside the dominant political, economical and social models of their times.
In that sense, cosmic inflation models are being financially sponsored more and more comparing to other theories since they propose some (kind of) materialistic systems that suit perfectly the philosophical foundations of modern capitalism while at the same time they do not fall into the trap of vulgar materialism (just ostensibly according to me) as different leftist scientists would afraid.

[Noelnada]

At some point you hit background radiation, a byproduct of the early stages of the Universe. Apparently they've managed to stretch the boundary a bit further or just plain analyze background radiation better, and what they've found is consistent with the Big Bang Theory.

It may also mean that they do not see far enough yet and coincidentally got a blurry picture that confirm in their opinion a theory that is in reality false.

1) There is not back/past in time. This is an illusion. Time is just a dimension. You can solve the relativity equations using meters or miles to measure time. Mathematically there is no problem at all;

It is a notion that i instinctively hold as true but struggle to understand fully in all its implications.

Nothing happens instantly in space-time: Physical phenomena (gravitation, electromagnetism, etc) propagate through spacetime at the speed of light.

From what i know, physical phenomenon can happen instantly like quantum entanglement.

[Igor Antunov]

New Big Bang evidence also hints that we may exist in a multiverse

The first direct evidence of cosmic inflation — a period of rapid expansion that occurred a fraction of a second after the Big Bang — also supports the idea that our universe is just one of many out there, some researchers say.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/ ... multiverse

I for one welcome our new necromonger overlords.

[Tschaggatta]

New Big Bang evidence also hints that we may exist in a multiverse
The first direct evidence of cosmic inflation — a period of rapid expansion that occurred a fraction of a second after the Big Bang — also supports the idea that our universe is just one of many out there, some researchers say.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/ ... multiverse

These kind of "researchers' " opinions are more like Ursula Le Guin stories rather than science

[mikema63]

Rarely are Ursala le guin's stories based on mathematical models and empirical evidence.

[Tschaggatta]

Rarely are Ursala le guin's stories based on mathematical models and empirical evidence.

I am sorry my friend but the idea of multiverse contains almost no scientific seeds. It is a pure fictional hypothesis. You can realize it by your self.
The only multiverse theory that had a scientific base was the M-theory (string theory). But if the Higgs boson has really been tracked at CERN then the different string theories directly collapse.

One comment about the mathematical models of the multiverse to which you referred. Mathematics are not the language of the universe as people think. Mathematics are the language that human biology invented to describe the part of the natural phenomena that can observe. In that sense, many mathematical models can be created. This does not mean that they describe any kind of reality.
Particularly in the case of multiverse, there are no observations at all. Just fictional theories decorated with mathematics or exotic interpretations of equations.

[mikema63]

I am sorry my friend but the idea of multiverse contains almost no scientific seeds.

Physicists, have stopped doing science.

[Tschaggatta]

Physicists, have stopped doing science.

No need to be ironic.
You do not answer to what I wrote.
I only expressed my opinion on a specific idea proposed by physicists.
The idea of multiverse.

I claimed (and not only me but many physicists as well) that there is no scientific evidence for these theories at all. No observations, no data, no empirical testing, nothing. Nothing at all.
The only thing that exists are different mathematical models describing theories that are not based on any kind of observation.
I am sorry but a mathematical model without possibility to test it does not constitute a scientific reality because mathematics are not a kind of natural reality but rather a human invention.

That is all I said. I did not judge the scientific work of physicists in general.

By the way, the idea of multiverse has specific ideological roots which are very interesting to those that are interested in the philosophy of science.

[mikema63]

Those mathematical models are based on all of our observations, they show possible explanations for observed phenomenon and propose testable predictions.

That kind of thing is how science works.

[Rich]

The multi-verse is a joke. Infinite universe created on zero evidence, this is far,far worse than the most literalist, Bible, Koran freaks. And its all so as they can say that the needed to be within 1 part in ten to the 120 constant is just a coincidence.