View Full Version : Worlds in Collision

Loose rivets
31st May 2012, 00:52
Why Earth is not an ice ball: Possible explanation for faint young sun paradox (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm)

This snippet of news made me mindful of a book I read when I was still young.

Worlds in Collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision)

I wonder if we'll ever know just what happened.

tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 01:12
Genesis 1 answers these questions

31st May 2012, 02:12

If you are serious, can you please provide an example (or two) of how Genesis answers these questions?


tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 02:49
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

31st May 2012, 03:10
Must be true then...

A bit of thread drift....
The word and appears 51696 times in the Bible
40975 in the Old Testament
10721 in the New Testament.

31st May 2012, 03:36
My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale.

31st May 2012, 03:38
Genesis 1 answers these questions


(Someone had to do it!) :}

tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 03:46
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Loose rivets
31st May 2012, 04:38
One never quite knows in which direction the mighty intellect of the Pprune fraternity will wander.

31st May 2012, 05:13
Critter - it does answer the questions, it's just if you find the answers good enough for you.
the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night
and the lesser light isn't enough to power solar batteries. As I got to know yesterday (hadn't occurred to wonder earlier). Weird, moonlight seems light enough on bright nights, still not enough.

31st May 2012, 05:47
He also made the stars.

If Marilyn Monroe, Ava Gardner and Jane Russell are any guide
he certainly knew how to build 'em right! :E


Regarding Worlds in Collision - the 1950 scientific community
handling of the Velikovsky affair was a bloody affront to the
name of Science - to denigrate rather than disprove without
passion. Harlow Shapley was a disgrace and I sincerely hope
the Galactic Centre will never be named after him. If he was
alive now he'd fit in well with the "scientific rationale" that
permeates pseudosciences such as global warming.

EVERYTHING in Science is permitted to be questioned and any
hypothesis has the right to be postulated no matter how off-
color or outlandish it appears. If it is disproven (which Sagan
did in the Velikovsky case but instead used the true method
of scientific endeavor to separate fact from absurdity) then it
can be safely tossed in the bin - but definitely not before.

31st May 2012, 07:15

Thanks for the quotes.

Do you believe what is written in Genesis is the literal truth (as opposed to an attempt by wise men of the time to explain natural phenomena that were not able to be scientifically explained or understood at that time)?

31st May 2012, 08:02
And God said, “Let there be light,”

......and you could see for fckuing miles!

G&T ice n slice
31st May 2012, 08:21
I'm sorry but someone is quoting from a "happy clappy" modern version of the book.[stake, firewood, rope, flint'n'tinder time for these heretic peddlers of modern versions]

it should be :
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

ALSO... is that the word "and" in italics appears so many times or just the word "and" both in & not in itallics. because there's a difference between "and" in italics and "and" not in italics

tony draper
31st May 2012, 08:31
As I understand it the phrase.
'Let there be light'
was in fact written by a Englishman called Miles Coverdale.

31st May 2012, 08:59
Last edited by tolakuma manki; 31st May 2012 at 03:46

Christopher Hitchins would have had something urbane to say about that. Editting a bible quote? Heresy for sure.

31st May 2012, 09:44
Nah. I do it all the time. Now, if I could type stuff right the first time...

31st May 2012, 10:40
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”

Lawrence M Krause

Not knocking religion (any one of them) but I kind of feel awed by the knowledge we are gleaning and if people want to equate a singularity with God then so be it but I prefer the science.


tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 10:43
Science has many paradoxes, the Word has none.
Caco - you in awe of God's work, me as well every day.

31st May 2012, 10:46
Science has many paradoxes but I have yet to find anything that when considered in the light of reason does not have some paradoxical elements including the "Word"!


31st May 2012, 10:47
As fantastical as Genesis is, the notion that there was nothing and then a God Almighty Bang, and everything came into being.....is equally as fantastical......well it couldn't have even been a God Almighty bang could it?!?

A definitive answer as to where it all started, really won't help me with where I need to get to though........

Knowing where the missing socks are is of more relevance.............maybe the spin cycle whips them into a parallel universe where they travel back in time to where it all started....but even then they'd be useful only for using as a type of glove for cleaning between the fancy parts of the car wheel when washing the car.....discarded to the bin after a few months of car wheel cleaning....

31st May 2012, 10:49
Oh, really? What did the carnivores on the ark eat?

tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 10:53
Magnus P-this is metaphorical, but not a paradox

31st May 2012, 11:00
Particles burp in and out of existence in the "void" all the time.

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea)

Maybe you, me and even 'God" are ex nihilo creations?

Like the manga take on this... ;)

Neon Genesis Evangelion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion)


31st May 2012, 11:12
Oh, really? What did the carnivores on the ark eat?

Why, what did you think happened to the Unicorns?

31st May 2012, 11:13
One the subject of space and religion, there was an intriguing question on University Challenge earlier this year regarding the scale of our local patch.

Taking the Earth's diameter as 1cm, the moon would measure some 3mm in diameter and be c.30cm away, the sun 1.2m in diameter and would be some 120m away. The question was, on this scale, how far would our nearest star neighbour, Proxima Centauri, be?

This would be a nice question to ask school kids - you could get them to mark out the positions on the playground or sports field. I wonder if any would ask the obvious follow-on question?

31st May 2012, 11:14
Metaphoricals, carnivores, missing socks.....

In Deuteronomy 25:4, the word of God says:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
The words "the corn" are in italics, which the sceptics claim should be omitted. However, we find Paul quoting these words in I Corinthians 9:9:

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"
If these words do not belong in Deuteronomy 25:4, why did Paul quote them?
It is easy to claim that the italicized words do not belong in the King James Bible, but proving it is altogether a different story. May God help us to spend more time reading and believing our King James Bible and less time speaking critically of it.

Hallelujah brudder.

tolakuma manki
31st May 2012, 11:14
To the OP question of the paradox.
Make the time span of the earth shorter and paradox is no more.

Read Genesis.

Osimosis - True that, read and think about the Word. Open your mind to great knowledge.

Lon More
31st May 2012, 11:16
... and dinosaurs walked the earth last week.

31st May 2012, 12:00
NIHIL EX NIHILO, except...

Funny thing about Nothing is the implicit endless uniformity of it.

If one can imagine an arbitrarily tiny perturbation -- by chance or from whatever source*-- arriving on or in a perfectly nice patch of Nothing, then the plot thickens considerably, as a wave of 'something' expands forth from that nexus, plausibly in all dimensions and directions, seeking entropy.

The 'something' is a distinguishable effect of mal-distributed nothing, the net form and substance of which still is, net-net, equal to nothing, when seen from outside the system comprised by the slightly disturbed patch of nothing.

A plurality of such entropic non-entities will likely not truly interact (as seen from inside individual mdns) while they merge, tangle, overlay, criss and cross in path and relative place, but they may collectively interact (for the benefit of external observers) to modulate the spatial entropy of localities around more and less dense mdn spaces in ways that cause the perceptible manifestations of energy, mass, etc. when viewed from a distance.

That's what I believe, anyway.

* bat flea, angel pee, or Infinity's own odd sense of humour

Loose rivets
31st May 2012, 16:56

At a quick guess

31st May 2012, 17:04
Bu66er that God, can I have my rib back

31st May 2012, 17:46

3.2 gigametres (i.e. 32000 kilometres), apparently.

So what's all this space for? Is it necessary for our existence?

31st May 2012, 17:49
"God" speaks English? Oh. I didn't know that. Oh well. Sorry for that, all you German speakers. Or Russian. Or......

31st May 2012, 18:00
I have an original 1950 edition of Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky. (Third impression November 1950, printed in Great Britain by Purnell & Sons Ltd.).

The author states quite clearly in the first page of his preface that "The reader is not asked to accept a theory without question. Rather, he is invited to consider for himself whether he is reading a book of fiction or non-fiction, whether what he is reading is invention or historical fact."

Now, I am an extremely clumsy reader and rarely bother with prefaces and such. I just have a poke around and try to find something of interest to me. My initial 'pokes' left me wondering whether I am reading fact or fiction and this was before I read the preface.

Over the years that I have delved into this book, I've started to take the view that perhaps there was some kind of global catacylsm that was recorded by various civilisations and cultures independently, in their own particular way.

The references the author makes in the book are vast, beyond what I can take in. An interesting book to own.

31st May 2012, 18:03
When reading The Bible, did anybody else get the feeling that it reads like it was written by a 5 year old? :\

31st May 2012, 18:11
Didn't you mean for a 5 year old?

One of the most profound books I have read of late was David Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity". He has some fairly robust things to say about previously held explanations of our existence. I urge any of you with a scientific bent to read it.

31st May 2012, 18:25
dead pan:

Another provocative read by the same author you are referring to is titled: 'The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - and Its Implications'. Of particular interest in this book was the theory of quantum computers: computer systems which collaborate with computers - their counterparts - in other universes!!!!

31st May 2012, 19:01
Science has many paradoxes, the Word has none.
Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bible+contradictions)

31st May 2012, 19:31
The "virgin birth" is not a paradox? Then what is it exactly, magic?

Mr Optimistic
31st May 2012, 20:54
Not everything in your body came from an exploding star but a lot of it came from two sequential exploding stars.

31st May 2012, 21:05
I'm a star?

tony draper
31st May 2012, 21:17
Yer I have have a lot of the orignal hydrogen in me,it needed no sploding stars,you lot are second hand.

31st May 2012, 21:25
...and all elements heavier than Iron come from supernova explosions
(ie BIG exploding stars), as normal stars can't create any significant quantities
of elements heavier than Iron as they are not "hot" enough...

Slightly OT - The Hubble telescope has just discovered that the Andromeda galaxy, which is moving towards us at 250,00 mph, will actually hit and merge with our galaxy within the lifetime of our Sun.

tony draper
31st May 2012, 21:34
I wouldn't worry about it, it wont be 'our' Sun when that event occures ,we will have been extinct for about ten billion years.

G&T ice n slice
31st May 2012, 21:43
Blimey, only 4 billion years ...

Not worth rushing about trying to get things done then.

tony draper
31st May 2012, 21:47
Once took part in a thread elsewhere where some peeps expressed great concern that our Sun would eventualy run out of hydrogen swell up to a large size and incinerate the Earth and all that in there is,one was roundly critisised for expressing indifference to said incineration.
Silly buggas.

G&T ice n slice
31st May 2012, 22:06
and no-one believes you when you tell them that "harnessing the wind" and "tidal power" will slow the earth's rotation and then the moon will slowly spiral in and go "splat" into the earth.

B Fraser
31st May 2012, 23:16
My favourite passage from Genesis is "It's one o'clock and time for lunch, tum tee tum tee tum".

They were never the same after Peter Gabriel left. :(

31st May 2012, 23:18
Science has many paradoxes, the Word has none.

Have they finally fixed all the bugs in that steaming heap? :}

B Fraser
31st May 2012, 23:38
Michelangelo was a smart cookie who studied many disciplines including anatomy. He participated in many disections in an effort to understand how the human skeleton functioned. As part of the painting of the ceiling in the Pope's front room, he positioned God surrounded by a flowing robe that just happens to take the form of a cross section of the human brain.

I think he had religion sussed.


1st Jun 2012, 00:29
A muso too...
http://s1.bild.me/bilder/160512/5041756210491803047f8e9cf5954e.gif (http://www.bild.me)

tolakuma manki
1st Jun 2012, 03:01
Look for God within, for in His image were you made.
Stars don't "create", Big Bang is children story, Nothing cannot think to create something.

1st Jun 2012, 04:27
Nothing cannot think to create something.

Well, there's a potential bit of a rub...

Where, exactly, does THINKING enter into the creation or origin of all that exists?

Does God think? What about? How does God do that? With a soupy old brain like ours, or something fancier?

If one were to gin up an explanation of how Nothing can think, would that inform or change any minds present here?

(No? Didn't think so.)

tolakuma manki
1st Jun 2012, 05:03
Sori, think was not right word.
Maybe "cause" is better.
Do thought exist without physical? Or is from the physical?

1st Jun 2012, 10:06
Do thought exist without physical? Or is from the physical?

This is a really great question! One could answer in many different ways, but each answer would have questions buried inside it, so it really wouldn't be an answer that could simply be put to work and use.

Probably the best way to have thoughtful discussions about complicated and far-reaching topics (such as the nature and meaning of Everything) is to include references, when they are not obvious, specifying which set of rules one is using in connection with a given statement. Examples of rule sets: physics (various sorts), religion (various sorts), philosophy (various sorts), personal experience (various sorts), tradition, (various sorts), what (mother, father, politician,neighbor, government-person brother, sister, husband, wife) says (various sorts), etc. That way, the discussion can go forward in connection with the subject at hand, without everyone having to stop and quibble about the definition or truth of the rules by which a statement is made or a belief is substantiated. Each one can say: under My rules, this is true. Under X rules I think it may likely be true. Under your rules I do not see how it can possibly be true, (but I am not going to suggest your rules are wrong, only that they do not seem compatible with My rules on this particular point or topic.)

This very considerate approach to greatly differing understandings about the same information does not produce many great and perfect answers, but the participants learn something about themselves and the others in the process, and that's a good thing.

If I were on Papua, that would be my answer.

tolakuma manki
1st Jun 2012, 11:36
The Word is constant, other rules change to whims of man
In world of Physics is now maths creating matter.
The maybe Higgs Boson particle comes to mind
Can the universe exist without Higgs Boson?
Mathematically not.

B Fraser
1st Jun 2012, 11:45
Big Bang is children storyIt may well end up being dropped if a better theory comes along however can you explain the observed doppler shift for light emitted by galaxies that is proportional to their distance and the cosmic background radiation ? Please include some maths in the answer to differentiate it from a children's story.

(Higgs probably sits around the 125MeV level)

Out of interest, what is your connection with aviation ?

tolakuma manki
1st Jun 2012, 11:59
B Fraser- No I cannot explain, can you please explain to me?
And can explain why light from big bang is reaching earth when earth is created from big bang? Matter is slower than light I think.

And I aviate for work.

G&T ice n slice
1st Jun 2012, 15:21

could you try to repeat that last one in Haiku form ?

Dave Barnshaw
1st Jun 2012, 15:26
Is it still worth me going on for my NPPL ?.:rolleyes:

Lon More
1st Jun 2012, 15:29
Nothing cannot think to create something.

you're squirming a bit by changing things. How could any god be created if he , or a more Superior Being, didn't think to create him?

Even sucstituting :cause" the question remains.

B Fraser
1st Jun 2012, 15:31
Red shift can be explained in very simple terms, V=HR where the velocity of the receding galaxy is a function of the Hubble constant (H) and the radial distance from the observer (R). In short, the further away the object that you are observing, the faster it is moving away relative to your position. The big bang theory fits with the observations i.e. the universe is expanding in all directions and by inference, originated from a single point. The background radiation which is a few decimal points above zero degrees Kelvin (we Scots turn up everywhere) is the residual heat from the initial event and appears broadly to be of the same intensity in all directions.

If you plot a number of observations of distance against velocity on a logarithmic scale, the universe expansion appears to be accelerating.

What's your explanation ?

1st Jun 2012, 15:34
B Fraser:

Although I agree with most all of what you just wrote concerning red shift and the expansion of the universe, there are several well-respected quantum physicists who claim that the expansion of our universe is actually starting to slow.

Now I don't buy into this, although I am far from having a scientific mind, I still ascribe to the theory that the universe - our universe - is still expanding in an accelerated manner. (Don't know about other universes though. Perhaps we'll accelerate into another one which has stalled. Kaaaa-boooommmmm!!!!!)

B Fraser
1st Jun 2012, 15:57
If that were the case then the plot of distance against velocity would curve in the opposite direction. The question is what percentage of the observations support their theory and are there enough to be statistically valid ?

1st Jun 2012, 16:02
I'm sure the percentages and quantity of data is infinitesimally small. Which is why they are in the minority. But, then again, so was Copernicus for awhile!!!!!

1st Jun 2012, 17:09
Mr Deutsch did mention the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe in the aforementioned book. Dark energy may be at work, or it could be an illusion. It certainly doesn't tie-in with any previous explanations.

1st Jun 2012, 17:19
from my understanding, dark matter/energy is "sucking" other forms of matter toward it. Which might explain the ever-expanding rate of acceleration of our Universe.

1st Jun 2012, 17:25
I recently recalled something I read that one of the great Renaissance artists thought that sperm originated in the brain. It was Leonardo Da Vinci.

"In an earlier age, even Leonardo da Vinci – a genius with a very scientific bent of mind, known for conducting dissections of cadavers – thought that semen originated in the male brain and traveled via the spinal cord, and that there was a vessel linking a woman’s nipples to her uterus."

The title is a book by a Matthew Cobb. Could be worth a browse. Apologies for quoting out of context.:bored:

Loose rivets
1st Jun 2012, 21:03
I wondered for a moment if that was the book I'd been looking for. It wasn't, and Amazzzzon didn't offer it in its suggestions either.

Anyone know of a book looking at medicine c 1650 - 1720, featuring many famous people, in particular Christopher Wren?

One part told of Wren's extraordinary interest in dissection. Another, the removal of the spleen from a dog to see what happened. (The sad critter followed them around as normal a few hours later.:{ )

England in turmoil, yet the quest for understanding seemed to be carrying on unabated. The brain was thought to cool the heart - the pulsating object having all that thinking to do.

We visited Shakespeare's extended family, and learned why surgeons are called Mister, etc., etc.

It were a smashing read, but just can't re-locate it.

2nd Jun 2012, 00:20
Loose rivets, I did find a reference to the period you described but have lost it. A book that I come back to often is by PD Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous. He was a pupil of Mr. George Gurdjieff. Then I realise I am acting mechanically and not with being.

tolakuma manki
2nd Jun 2012, 01:58
For GT and Slice -
Explosion in the Centre
Light and matter dispersed
light comes first

Loose rivets
2nd Jun 2012, 05:26
Separate Dark matter and Dark energy as confusingly named substance/phenomena that should be considered separately.

Probably best not to assume the Universe is being pulled - it may well have its own energy springing its structure apart. If it has been constrained by gravity, it may well spring apart faster as it gets bigger and mass and therefor gravity are diluted.

G&T ice n slice
2nd Jun 2012, 09:53
Nice one !

2nd Jun 2012, 11:26
The concept of the universe expanding at an accelerated rate does pose more than a few deep questions/problems. Assuming this rate of acceleration has been constant ever since the big bang (if not, why not?), it does suggest this event occurred more recently than we first thought. It also suggests than an ever-increasing proportion of the universe will become unobservable as it redshifts out of our detection capability, and that the unobservable universe is larger than we first thought.

2nd Jun 2012, 12:54
If it has been constrained by gravity, it may well spring apart faster as it gets bigger and mass and therefor gravity are diluted.

There goes Global Warming, at least. Small favours better than none.

Loose rivets
2nd Jun 2012, 16:47
During the Inflationary Period. (Alan Guth) The Universe underwent an extremely rapid expansion. Guth named this process inflation.

He calculated the Universe expanded exponentially ten to the 78 in volume from a time ten to the minus 36, to the most, minus 32 seconds. So, not too long. It seems it then reverted to the expansion we know today. But I'm not sure.

In a fluid Spacetime, a change from rapid expansion to the rate in our epoch, might well be just part of a very low frequency oscillation. Waves pulsing from the original 'disturbance', out to the furthest reaches.

Possibly, what we are seeing is just the accelerating part of one of these bounces.

3rd Jun 2012, 02:59
Possibly, what we are seeing is just the accelerating part of one of these bounces.

Now you're on a roll! Pls put me down for a signed copy, first-run, of the Grand Theory.

3rd Jun 2012, 03:46
Science or mumbo-jumbo..... I'll stick with the science thank you

Loose rivets
3rd Jun 2012, 05:16
Okay, I'll give two answers to that.

It's wise to stick with science . . . but then there were great visionaries who reached out with their minds.

It's wise to stick with science . . . but then there were great visionaries who reached out with their minds while standing on the shoulders of giants.

You see, the difference is, some minds have to be bound by orthodoxy, every statement carrying a referral. But then there are some, who just post things in minor publications and JetBlast, and have little fear of being caught with their pants down.

Mind you, I was left with a lot of egg on my face on this forum, and on this very topic. I'd just jumped to the conclusion 'The Great Attractor' encircled the universe (somewhere beyond the boundary of the visible universe) while in fact it is localized . . . if anything that big can be called localized. Just over exuberance after a late night.

tolakuma manki
3rd Jun 2012, 05:24
If you plot a number of observations of distance against velocity on a logarithmic scale, the universe expansion appears to be accelerating.
Expanding and contracting.
Static is best
Relativity says so.

Mr Optimistic
3rd Jun 2012, 16:39
Well I think that dark matter and dark energy are b*llocks and the FPO agrees with me so I must be right.

3rd Jun 2012, 16:52
At 1:14 or so this clip gives an image of two galaxies colliding, there's also other amazing effects/pictures.

The music isn't bad either......

Vangelis - Tears in Rain (Blade Runner) - YouTube

B Fraser
3rd Jun 2012, 17:16
Expanding and contracting.
Static is best
Relativity says so.

No it doesn't. Please quote your source.

Loose rivets
3rd Jun 2012, 18:56
Indeed, it took a bit of fiddling to make it flat.

From Space.com However, I'm confused by this writer's interpretation of the word 'Flat' when used to describe the Universe. But that's an aside.

The researchers also found that the universe is expanding faster today than at any time in the past.

"At first we were reluctant to believe our result," said Saul Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, who led a competing team that found the same results as Schmidt and Riess. "But the more we analyzed it, the more it wouldn't go away."

To explain these puzzling findings, some scientists have revived an old idea of Einstein's that had been discarded as false: that the vacuum of space has energy in it that acts repulsively and accelerates the expansion of the universe. Einstein called this idea the cosmological constant, and referred to it as his "biggest blunder."

Now the cosmological constant is one of the leading theories of why the universe is blowing up like a balloon at ever-increasing speed.

Dark matter

Dark energy is sometimes confused with the similarly mysterious dark matter, though the two are separate entities.

I'm confused. I've always thought the Fiddle-factor was to bring the Universe back to a Fred Hoyle type steady state. Hubble's work was a deciding factor in getting rid of it 'forever.'

But now, reintroducing Lambda would surely only bring us back to steady state. Have they put it in with an opposite sine? i.e. -3

Apropos the two Dark thingies. I think this is what causes the confusion:

Taken together, dark matter and dark energy seem to make up most of the mass of the universe (matter and energy are considered to be two forms of the same thing, thanks to Einstein's famous equation E=Mc^2). Dark energy is thought to account for 74 percent of the universe, while dark matter adds about 22 percent, and normal, visible matter contributes a puny 4 percent.


tolakuma manki
4th Jun 2012, 00:34
No it doesn't

Yes, it does.

Now the cosmological constant is one of the leading theories of why the universe is blowing up like a balloon at ever-increasing speed.

When balloon deflates does balloon shoot across galaxies or does expand to infinity (and beyond)

4th Jun 2012, 02:16
...to infinity (and beyond)...

You are Buzz Lightyear, and I hereby claim my prize. :}

Loose rivets
4th Jun 2012, 05:26
No it doesn't

Yes, it does.

Punch got shafted, but only after I'd warned him several time.

Yes, I'd shouted "Look behind you!"

Kah! Don't you remember being young?

I'd wanted to say something about nucleosynthesis, but decided against being positive.

If it says anything about Editing, I shall eat my underpants.

Loose rivets
4th Jun 2012, 05:29

B Fraser
4th Jun 2012, 10:50
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)

Manki, I'll think you'll find the answer in the above paper. Please feel free to describe the sections that you disagree with and illustrate your points with examples as you see fit.

Even the Pope's astronomer does not argue with the observed red-shift and the big bang theory. The Pope has commented that he's comfortable with science explaining what happened back to the moment of the big bang but not what may have led up to that point. He even has gone as far as saying that the big bang was God's work. There are plenty of references to his comments including this.

Don't dismiss Big Bang theory, says Pope - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dont-dismiss-big-bang-theory-102683)

If you still think it's a children's story then please write to him and give him the benefit of your insight.

4th Jun 2012, 11:40
This mission is/was one of the most important ones with respect to answering some big questions relevant to the origins of our universe and the concept of the Big Bang (Fred Hoyle's words come back to haunt us).

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology -- the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. WMAP has been stunningly successful, producing our new Standard Model of Cosmology. WMAP's data stream has ended. Full analysis of the data will be completed in the remaining two years of the mission.

WMAP's Top Ten
NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the univers</SPAN>e) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!
WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude
The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5653/#special)
WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008 (http://sciencewatch.com/ana/hot/phy/08marapr-phy/)
WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well-known textbook models for the first time.
The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe.
WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the new millennium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous impact.
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

Those PPRUners who question dark energy and the possibility of "dark matter" should review this mission and marvel.

LAMBDA - WMAP Documents (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr4/map_bibliography.cfm)


Edited to say that a flat Euclidian universe allows for ex nihilo universal origins...

ASP: A Universe from Nothing (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html)

4th Jun 2012, 12:56
For those with a religious or deistic bent then this/these guy(s) is/are readible... but I still prefer Lawrence M Krauss's uncompromising view of things...

Reasons To Believe : About : Mission & Beliefs (http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission)

Would you take Pascal's wager?

God and Science Don't Mix - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html)


4th Jun 2012, 13:57
The key flaw in the argument for God is why go to all this trouble to select 10000 souls for the everlasting. Not only is it staggeringly wasteful (all this universe just for us?), it is also cruelly unfair on all those people who lived before our religious enlightenment.

Based on probabalities alone, your chances of making the grade are scant to say the least. Any infraction, however minor, at any point in your life would surely rule you out. Also, what if He's already reached his quota? What are we supposed to do then - wait for an angel for fall from grace?

7th Jun 2012, 11:02
If heaven is within a Fourth Dimensional Universe its possible
to fit unlimited numbers of 3-D souls in it without too much
jostling around. That's assuming a soul possesses Time and
Energy but not physical Matter (and its been said it doesn't).

Everything's therefore invisible and without form - you won't
see old mum and dad, aunt Masie or that kid who ate his own
foot. You'll be not only blind.... but totally deaf and unable to
scratch your own bum (nor even find it).

Same goes for hell - exact same existence as heaven but with
a different aircon policy.

7th Jun 2012, 13:45
I have to go with this version of the Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory - YouTube

8th Jun 2012, 15:34
RELEASE: 12-159


WASHINGTON -- NASA astronomers announced Thursday they can now predict
with certainty the next major cosmic event to affect our galaxy, sun,
and solar system: the titanic collision of our Milky Way galaxy with
the neighboring Andromeda galaxy.

The Milky Way is destined to get a major makeover during the
encounter, which is predicted to happen four billion years from now.
It is likely the sun will be flung into a new region of our galaxy,
but our Earth and solar system are in no danger of being destroyed.

"Our findings are statistically consistent with a head-on collision
between the Andromeda galaxy and our Milky Way galaxy," said Roeland
van der Marel of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in

The solution came through painstaking NASA Hubble Space Telescope
measurements of the motion of Andromeda, which also is known as M31.
The galaxy is now 2.5 million light-years away, but it is inexorably
falling toward the Milky Way under the mutual pull of gravity between
the two galaxies and the invisible dark matter that surrounds them

"After nearly a century of speculation about the future destiny of
Andromeda and our Milky Way, we at last have a clear picture of how
events will unfold over the coming billions of years," said Sangmo
Tony Sohn of STScI.

The scenario is like a baseball batter watching an oncoming fastball.
Although Andromeda is approaching us more than two thousand times
faster, it will take 4 billion years before the strike.

Computer simulations derived from Hubble's data show that it will take
an additional two billion years after the encounter for the
interacting galaxies to completely merge under the tug of gravity and
reshape into a single elliptical galaxy similar to the kind commonly
seen in the local universe.

Although the galaxies will plow into each other, stars inside each
galaxy are so far apart that they will not collide with other stars
during the encounter. However, the stars will be thrown into
different orbits around the new galactic center. Simulations show
that our solar system will probably be tossed much farther from the
galactic core than it is today.

To make matters more complicated, M31's small companion, the
Triangulum galaxy, M33, will join in the collision and perhaps later
merge with the M31/Milky Way pair. There is a small chance that M33
will hit the Milky Way first.

The universe is expanding and accelerating, and collisions between
galaxies in close proximity to each other still happen because they
are bound by the gravity of the dark matter surrounding them. The
Hubble Space Telescope's deep views of the universe show such
encounters between galaxies were more common in the past when the
universe was smaller.

A century ago astronomers did not realize that M31 was a separate
galaxy far beyond the stars of the Milky Way. Edwin Hubble measured
its vast distance by uncovering a variable star that served as a
"milepost marker."

Hubble went on to discover the expanding universe where galaxies are
rushing away from us, but it has long been known that M31 is moving
toward the Milky Way at about 250,000 miles per hour. That is fast
enough to travel from here to the moon in one hour. The measurement
was made using the Doppler effect, which is a change in frequency and
wavelength of waves produced by a moving source relative to an
observer, to measure how starlight in the galaxy has been compressed
by Andromeda's motion toward us.

Previously, it was unknown whether the far-future encounter will be a
miss, glancing blow, or head-on smashup. This depends on M31's
tangential motion. Until now, astronomers had not been able to
measure M31's sideways motion in the sky, despite attempts dating
back more than a century. The Hubble Space Telescope team, led by van
der Marel, conducted extraordinarily precise observations of the
sideways motion of M31 that remove any doubt that it is destined to
collide and merge with the Milky Way.

"This was accomplished by repeatedly observing select regions of the
galaxy over a five- to seven-year period," said Jay Anderson of

"In the worst-case-scenario simulation, M31 slams into the Milky Way
head-on and the stars are all scattered into different orbits," said
Gurtina Besla of Columbia University in New York. "The stellar
populations of both galaxies are jostled, and the Milky Way loses its
flattened pancake shape with most of the stars on nearly circular
orbits. The galaxies' cores merge, and the stars settle into
randomized orbits to create an elliptical-shaped galaxy."

The space shuttle servicing missions to Hubble upgraded it with ever
more-powerful cameras, which have given astronomers a long-enough
time baseline to make the critical measurements needed to nail down
M31's motion. The Hubble observations and the consequences of the
merger are reported in three papers that will appear in an upcoming
issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

For images, video, and more information about M31's collision with the
Milky Way, visit:

NASA - NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-On Collision (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html)

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-on Collision with Andromeda Galaxy (05/31/2012) - Introduction (http://hubblesite.org/news/2012/20)

For more information about NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, visit:

NASA - Hubble (http://www.nasa.gov/hubble)


Loose rivets
8th Jun 2012, 17:39
Thanks, Caco. I'll shall read the other links when the day's chores are done.

I do wonder what George Smoot thinks of the new techniques. He put so much work into this subject. Goodness! I see he's even won $1M on a TV quiz show. His Wrinkles in Time was a smashing read - almost a novel, and far more exciting than most science books.

George Smoot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot)

The thing holding me up on my book is a fear of offending a good proportion of my potential readers by suggesting a reason for the creation of the Universe. I'm doing a lot of re-writing, but despite this, I've upset a dear old-timer in the writer's group. He is so sure about the creation that anything new is deeply disturbing to him. He is representative of a lot of Americans. In the second and third book, I gradually merge worldly theology with the science, and end with a compromise built on science and a creator, so 'God and Science Don't Mix' - WSJ will be of particular interest to me.

Loose rivets
8th Jun 2012, 20:35
chksix, just read in.

It would be wonderful to view the merger of galaxies from some Olympian viewpoint, and with the ability to fast forward time, though I was already aware that in proportion to their size, there's a lot more space between individual stars than between galaxies. It seems improbable they'd all miss, and I imagine in the area of the core black holes things would become chaotic. However, 4 billion years - plus, two billion after things get going - I doubt we'd care much, since in now seems our sun has a life-expectancy of about that.

Maybe, this is what it's all about. God's science team are sending life-rafts to meet us as we escape from our ballooning old sun. I hope there's one or two nice greeny-blue ones in the mix.

Sitting here with me cup of tea, I've come to the conclusion there's no such thing as dark matter. I reckon it'll turn out to be concentrated spacetime - as it makes its way to the huge perceivable mass of galaxies. It would give the impression of having its own mass, and indeed counter the natural and opposite effect of dark energy.

Don't suppose I'll get a Nobel prize for my musings.

8th Jun 2012, 21:47
That galaxy dance animation is awe inspiring. I wonder how long the computers had to work to produce it?
NASA - NASA's Hubble Shows Milky Way is Destined for Head-On Collision (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html)

4 billion years is our earth's lifetime.... incomprehensible :sad:

tony draper
8th Jun 2012, 22:12
As I keep saying,if that is all we have to worry about stop worrying about it,our species will have been extinct for about 3,900,000,000 of those 4000,000,000 years.

tolakuma manki
8th Jun 2012, 23:58
Look, infinity
Sorry can't see it