PDA

View Full Version : Ripples in the fabric of space time...


Cacophonix
17th Mar 2014, 18:36
Big Bang echo: scientists find 'signal from dawn of time' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10703721/Big-Bang-echo-scientists-find-signal-from-dawn-of-time.html)

Quite an amazing piece of detection... and the implication is that in those first fragile nanoseconds the universe expanded far faster then the speed of light (which doesn't violate Einstein's tenet).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

Caco

Lon More
17th Mar 2014, 18:53
Reminder to self; must get new glasses

I read "Nipples"

rgbrock1
17th Mar 2014, 18:55
Nipples? Where?!!! :}:E

Dak Man
17th Mar 2014, 18:56
Was reading about this earlier today, seems that the Cosmologists are on the verge of revealing something quite extrordinary, 4PM EST is I believe the time that they KO the presentation.

rgbrock1
17th Mar 2014, 18:58
Dak Man wrote:

seems that the Cosmologists are on the verge of revealing something quite extrordinary, 4PM EST is I believe the time that they KO the presentation.

Yup, said Cosmologists have irrefutable proof that there is no life on Uranus. :}:E:}:E

Cacophonix
17th Mar 2014, 19:01
I read "Nipples"


An avant garde physics teacher once went further in one of my science classes than just showing the bridge over the Tacoma Narrows film to describe harmonics and waves and showed a science video that used a bra and a pair of breasts bigger than Erica Roe's to demonstrate regular oscillation. Needless to say we all became huge physics fans...

I attach the video of the bridge for those who have become tired of Erica...

Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube

Caco

Cacophonix
17th Mar 2014, 19:09
I post a 'tasteful' image of Erica to show how she might have set up some ripples in space time herself... (all in the name of Science of course)...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002191_560186090685342_467802580_n.jpg

Caco

rgbrock1
17th Mar 2014, 19:13
Caco:

Now I know why Lon More thought he read the word "nipples' instead of "ripples".

Does her chest have a separate zip code? :}

Cacophonix
17th Mar 2014, 19:24
Does her chest have a separate zip code? :}


Our postal zip codes come in two segments here in the UK RGB and looking at Erica you can see why...

I won't even get into the strength of the required zippers etc. All to keep that fabric aligned (a kind of Grand Unified Theory if you will).... ;)

Caco

rgbrock1
17th Mar 2014, 19:26
Caco:

I won't even get into the strength of the required zippers etc. All to keep that fabric aligned (a king of Grand Unified Theory if you will)....

F*** the Grand Unified Theory, this brings a different perspective to the idea that gravity holds the earth in place. It does not. Erica's boobs prop up the earth, and nothing more than that. Sir Isaac Newton was a moron. Had he met Erica he would have known better. :ok:

G&T ice n slice
17th Mar 2014, 21:28
They're at it again, these scientists, they can't leave stuff well alone...

you know what's going to happen...

scientist : tinker, tinker, tinker, poke, proggle, tinker, pull, tinker, push, tinker, tweak, poke, tinker.

Universe : "fweeeep pop"!

God: "that'll teach them, right how does it go? oh, yeah. AHEM! let there be light!

500N
17th Mar 2014, 21:44
Well, I can honestly tell you that Erica's mountains will not be quite as perky now as they were then !!!

Erosion will have set in and it would be more like the slope of a valley ;)

TomJoad
17th Mar 2014, 21:46
Not as strange as it may sound, there is a theory in cosmology that the "big bang" was initiated by the rebounding of a collapsing universe.

Windy Militant
17th Mar 2014, 21:50
Ripples in the fabric of space time...
Does this mean that God can't iron and is that why he created Woman! :}

TomJoad
17th Mar 2014, 22:16
It's the ripples that gave rise to everything you see round you, including you and the iron:p

Burnie5204
17th Mar 2014, 22:23
TomJoad

Exactly. And they believe that (given that the rate of expansion of the universe is slowing) eventually our universe will begin contracting and we'll eventually have the big squeeze where all matter contracts back to a single point again and everything will be dead which will create another big bang and life will have to start all over again.

awblain
17th Mar 2014, 22:34
The expansion rate was slowing ~10Gyr ago, but now it's increasing.

There's something out there driving expansion (dark energy), perhaps rather like whatever drove the inflation that produced these new polarization signals. It's currently dominating the dynamics of the Universe, and it's getting more dominant with time.

500N
17th Mar 2014, 22:46
"There's something out there driving expansion (dark energy), perhaps rather like whatever drove the inflation"


In the case of Erica, age, weight and gravity :O

TomJoad
17th Mar 2014, 23:08
Burnie,

Yes, spaghettification is our final destination - don't panic though won't happen next week:E

Windy Militant
17th Mar 2014, 23:12
Apparently the Craniums at MIT and Oxford have now found out what actully caused the big bang. they have released a video....
Dark Star - let there be light - YouTube

rgbrock1
19th Mar 2014, 15:42
Windy wrote:

Does this mean that God can't iron and is that why he created Woman!

Precisely. That is also why God created women with shorter/smaller feet: so they can stand closer to the stove and sink. :}:E

Gridlock
19th Mar 2014, 15:54
It was Erica that climbed into the bath, not Archimedes. He merely noted the large water displacement. It wasn't Eureka he shouted :eek:

Capot
19th Mar 2014, 16:04
Right, I've got the Big Bang sussed out, no problem there, anyone can understand it and how it turned into the Universe.

Just one detail; what was there before the Big Bang? Or, to put it another way, what went bang, and in what? If I could only get to the bottom of that, I could spend more time trying to learn Polish.

rgbrock1
19th Mar 2014, 16:49
Capot wrote:

Just one detail; what was there before the Big Bang?

You have to be told what that was? You can't figure it out for yourself?
It's actually quite simple. Before the Big Bang was the flying spaghetti monsters.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-22291116-650-520.png

Mac the Knife
19th Mar 2014, 18:10
Dark Star - John Carpenter - brilliant movie.

Pinback, the alien, "Benson, Arizona", phenomenology

Mac

Burnie5204
19th Mar 2014, 19:06
Capot,

My brother did an MSc in Physics at Durham, his 'specialism' was Astrophysics. He met a lot of eminant physicists who spent their time looking into the Big Bang and he said that the majority were Christians and had become so as a result of their research. He said that they had looked so far into the big bang and science explained everything except for that very question - what came before the Big Bang and what caused it. Something had to exist to create the bang that created everything else, but what created THAT. No matter how hard they looked Science provided answers for everything except that...

'And then he said "Let there be light".....

alisoncc
19th Mar 2014, 19:40
'And then he said "Let there be light".....And there was light.
And you could see for f**king miles.



Sorry, that goes back a long way.
Most often heard in a crewroom at the crack of dawn or equally stupid time.
:E

ricardian
19th Mar 2014, 20:15
Here's a chap with an interesting theory!

tony draper
19th Mar 2014, 20:37
I blame care in the community Mr Ricardian.
The man belongs in a room with rubber wallpaper and stout locks on the door
:uhoh:

TomJoad
19th Mar 2014, 21:14
Capot,

My brother did an MSc in Physics at Durham, his 'specialism' was Astrophysics. He met a lot of eminant physicists who spent their time looking into the Big Bang and he said that the majority were Christians and had become so as a result of their research. .

In cosmology, in the purest sense, it actually makes no sense to ask "what happened before" as before did not exist - time itself did not exist. Neither did the "big bang and subsequent expansion" explode into anything or expand into anything - there was nothing to explode or expand into. The problem lies with the term "big bang" - this was a derogatory term used by an advocate of the competing "steady state theory". The bang in "big bang" suggests a conventional explosion radiating from a point - this model is reinforced by many a TV graphic which shows a fireball emanating from a point source. The reality of the "big bang" was that that the event took place at the same time at every point - it did not expand into anything - it was itself everywhere. This is of course not a satisfactory answer to our intuitive mind but there you go - we are hampered in our understanding by the constraints of our own experience of the universe.

As for a spiritual link to the "big bang" . It may come as a surprise to many but the originator of the "big bang theory" was a Catholic Priest - Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, he was the professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain. Monseigneur Lemaître was an undergrad student at Cambridge and completed his PhD at MIT. Contrary to popular belief it wasn't Hubble who first theorised the expansion of the universe rather it was Lemaître together with the first estimate of what became known as Hubble's constant (defines the rate at which the universe is expanding). His original theory hypothesised what he refreshed to as the primeval atom - the Cosmic Egg as he joking called it exploding at the moment of creation of the universe. This would latter become known as "the big bang theory" mischievously penned by Fred Hoye a competing astronomer who favoured the steady state model which suggested the universe had always existed.

tony draper
19th Mar 2014, 21:35
Nah, we are living inside a vast singularity as we look out we see the stuff from the outside stars galaxies ect falling in towards said singularity,but as we experience time in the opposite way to which it is running it appears everything is flying out toward the event horizon when it reaches thence to us it appears red shifted to the speed of light and disappears.
Just have a few more sums to do and I shall publish.
:)

tony draper
19th Mar 2014, 21:56
How dare dare you Sir!,my seconds shall call upon your seconds on the morrow.
:=
Settle your affairs

awblain
19th Mar 2014, 22:03
Surely in your model, Tony, you would have to seek satisfaction upon the yester?

TomJoad
19th Mar 2014, 22:07
Nah, we are living inside a vast singularity ...
:)

:D:D:D

Stephen Hawking is wondering "did nobody read my book":p

tony draper
19th Mar 2014, 22:38
Here's one for my book of verse(unpublished)
Musings on the infinite.
Big black holes have small black holes that live deep down inside em,and small black holes have smaller black holes, and so ad infinitum.
:rolleyes:
One should really finish that book but one simply get the opium these days

owen meaney
19th Mar 2014, 23:02
In cosmology, in the purest sense, it actually makes no sense to ask "what happened before" as before did not exist - time itself did not exist. Neither did the "big bang and subsequent expansion" explode into anything or expand into anything - there was nothing to explode or expand into.
To a western educated mind, that is sensible and logical.
For those less educated in western philosophies and sciences, God is the answer to the question of origin.
Each is satisfied, either could be correct, or both may be wrong.

Mr Optimistic
19th Mar 2014, 23:13
Cosmology is easy. Think of something. Do the math. If it doesn't work out invent a concept which will rescue your mental wanderings. Give concept a name and stick 'dark' in front of it then loaf city.

owen meaney
19th Mar 2014, 23:39
Think of something. Do the math. If it doesn't work out invent a concept which will rescue your mental wanderings.
Mr O, Einstein versus Newtownian physics perhaps?
After doing the math, build a billion dollar facility to find proof.

Mr Optimistic
19th Mar 2014, 23:42
I admit to one mistake. When I said 'do the math' I obviously meant get the grad student to do the math :}

dubbleyew eight
20th Mar 2014, 12:42
I obviously meant get the grad student to do the math

that actually does work. wasn't one of the great puzzles of mathematics solved by a student who missed class, arriving after everyone had left, saw the puzzle on the board and wrote it down thinking it was his homework problem.

turns out the lecturer was outlining one of the great unsolved conundrums in maths.

student did some feverish work, thought outside the box for proofs and solved it.
handed in his "homework" to a stunned lecturer.

I believe this is true.