It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

here come the nothing! "never ending story" snicker

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
They found something that is to big to exist.
Gotta love the sound of settled science being punched in the face.
I'm not a creationist or anything but I love it when smug scientist are at a complete loss to explain things that they didn't see coming.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



+4 more 
posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”



edit on 4/21/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/21/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

True scientists do. The ones who believe in settled science don't, but they aren't exactly true scientists, either.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

it's the drain.

But really. Why fuss about the little void when you can clearly see there is some kind of structure 1000x bigger (in red) just to the left of the drain.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”



It is pretty simple really, there is a model developed that is the accepted one, if any of us regular people feel the evidence points to it being wrong we get laughed at because we are not the great all knowing scientists!

Then over and over again the scientists accepted model is blown away because something doesn't fit...again, and it is not anything to even note it is simply because we are all stupid and they are all so perfect in so many eyes!



Although the Big Bang theory allows for areas that are cooler and hotter, the size of the void does not fit with predicted models. Simply put, it is too big to exist.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”





No I understand science quite well. I also understand most of the computer models they come up with are not worth the paper they are printed on.
They get facts and theories confused and this sort of discovery brings them back to reality.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Wow.
God sure has a big eraser.
Those pencils and pens must be quite the sight as well!



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”



It is pretty simple really, there is a model developed that is the accepted one, if any of us regular people feel the evidence points to it being wrong we get laughed at because we are not the great all knowing scientists!

Then over and over again the scientists accepted model is blown away because something doesn't fit...again, and it is not anything to even note it is simply because we are all stupid and they are all so perfect in so many eyes!



Although the Big Bang theory allows for areas that are cooler and hotter, the size of the void does not fit with predicted models. Simply put, it is too big to exist.


Here's the difference: evidence.

The "regular people" (creationists) you're referring to are unable to present actual evidence that proves anything wrong. You have nothing but opinion, a book, and your own misunderstandings as "proof" that scientists have it all wrong.

When you can produce real evidence that the established theories are wrong, someone in the scientific world might actually pay attention.

Aside from all that, scientific theories are designed to allow new discoveries like this one so the information can be changed as new evidence presents itself. Scientists don't pretend to have all the answers, religions do that.

New discoveries VERY RARELY invalidate existing theories and even if they did, it certainly wouldn't somehow open the door for "well obviously if we don't know why this happened, that means god did it."
edit on 4/21/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

They get facts and theories confused and this sort of discovery brings them back to reality.


Yeah, like I said... you have a basic lack of understanding as it regards the scientific process.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
just chiming in to say i loved that movie.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The Sloan great wall sends it regards.

When it comes to astrophysics all bets are off-our understanding of the universe has changed over time and there is always a spanner thrown into the cogs.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Answer

True scientists do. The ones who believe in settled science don't, but they aren't exactly true scientists, either.



Easy way to tell..

If you don't see phrases like "we think..." "it's possible that..." "the evidence points to...."

Sentences that don't sound like that? Well now we have a mystic, or a materialist or whatever else..


People do not stay one word. Someone could be a scientist when the light is off in the room and then flip the light switch..
Hypothesis: the room is dark because the light is off.
Experiment: flip the switch to turn the light on.
Conclusion: light is now on. It was off because the switch was off.

And then we lose the science and think the light will always turn on... Back to normal, no more questions. Now we are a believer again..

I would love to explain this in more detail sometime.. Everyone is religious. Everyone is a scientist. It's just a matter of when and how much and in what mix.

In whatever capacity you are acting like you already have an answer, you are not acting as a scientist.
And anytime you are looking for an answer you are a scientist.

Science and Truth are not synonyms. Though one can/does/sometimes will lead to the other.




Experience and Experiment are Similar words for a reason..

And I thought this thread would involve the never ending story. my experience/ment, showed that hypothesis to be faulty so far.. I could run it a few more times throughout the day.. Maybe we will have more "data" (posts) by then.
edit on 21-4-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer




The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

The ‘super void’, which is 1.8 billion light-years across, is the largest known structure ever discovered in the universe but scientists are baffled about what it is and why it is so barren.

Somebody has limited imagination.

The bigger "void" is the one outside everything. The one that goes on forever. Its not empty, either.

The biggest void imaginable is the one in your mind. There is no end to space.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”




Speaking from a purely analytical view . How can they " discover" something that's not actually there?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

More like ...

The one guy who says, "Hey look! All these people who are getting cholera? Yeah, I've tracked their cases and the locations, and they've all been getting their water from these specific wells. I think that may be a connection. Maybe we should try shutting down those public wells?"

And the rest of the doctors all laugh at him and say, "You idiot! Everyone knows. It's settled science. Cholera comes from bad air!"



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer




The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)


If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.

The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.

Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists love when stuff like this happens.

Your comments show a lack of understanding for how scientists view the world.

Further, these comments indicate that they have found this sort of thing before and aren't completely baffled like the OP seems to believe:


“Supervoids are not entirely empty, they’re under-dense,” said András Kovács, a co-author at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. “This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered. Given the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe.”




Speaking from a purely analytical view . How can they " discover" something that's not actually there?


A "void" is detectable, even if it's actually "nothing."

"Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand..."
edit on 4/21/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer




The "regular people" (creationists)

I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)


If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.

The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.

Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.


The problem is that it can be very, very difficult to get a grant to produce said research or gain peer review if your hypothesis and research go too far against the orthodox views of settled science.

You should read all the studies that have nods to "climate change" where it really doesn't need to be simply because by adding it, you are in the territory of current "settled science" and have an easier time getting a grant for your study.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)


Somehow I got the same feeling that you really mean creationist or woodoo scientist such as Deepak Chopra...

I think that is actually wrong to call them scientist, as they are not using scientific method in works.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join