Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Typical Misconceptions about the Universe

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Don't know why I made this thread, just really bored I guess. This is just a list of average misconceptions about the Universe. It's not really an article, but since alot of people tend to flip-flop their science thinking that College has taught them all they need to know about the world around us, and I don't have anything better to do...well, you get the idea.

Misconception: The universe is 13 billion light-years big and we have the tools to see the center of the universe, but don't know where it is.

Truth is: The universe is only 13 billion (give or take) years old. This means we can only see up to 13 billion light-years away, but does not mean the universe is 13 billion light years wide (or long, whichever you prefer). Anything we see within this range is part of the observable universe, the part of the universe we can see. It is



If something is outside this range, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we can't see it -- yet. It is actually estimated that currently the universe is about 28 billion parsecs, or 93 billion light-years in size. This is due to the rate of expansion the universe underwent during the Big Bang, and is still continuing to this day. In another billion years, our view will expand to 14+/- billion light years. We can't see the center of the universe because the universe is homogeneous, meaning matter is spread out evenly among the universe, and also, because the universe is isotropic, meaning no matter which direction you look, even at the edge of the universe, it looks the same. This of course, is just a principle. The Cosmological Principle, in fact.


Viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, there are no preferred directions or preferred places in the Universe. Stated simply, this principle means that averaged over large enough distances, one part of the Universe looks approximately like any other part.


(for the sake of not using Wiki) Source

Misconception: Outside of the universe is the 4th dimension

Truth is: This is just one of many theories, and a horrible theory at that. Sadly, I've seen it written on these boards and decided to add it in. The 3rd dimension sits in the universe. That is to say, the 3rd dimension is not the universe itself, but the 3rd dimension is part of the universe. What you are seeing is the 3rd dimension of space itself. Think of what you are seeing as a layer. We exist in the 3rd dimension, which is just another layer of the universe itself. So the 4th dimension cannot possibly exist OUTSIDE of the universe, because it exists within the universe, and although it is not a spatial dimension (It isn't X, Y, or Z) it is just another layer and is known as spacetime.


Imagine, for instance, that you're at the center of a hollow sphere. The distance between you and every point on the sphere's surface is equal. Now, try moving in a direction that allows you to move away from all points on the sphere's surface while maintaining that equidistance. You can't do it. There's nowhere to go—nowhere that we know anyway.


Source



It is hard to conceive of spacetime, but we do it all the time when we think of timelines. The 4th dimension is just time, or rather, state of being and time does not exist separate of our universe.

Misconception: Space and the Universe are the same things

Truth is: If you haven't read the above misconception, you may want to. Space is the term we use for our 3rd dimension. Most people tend to confuse Space with Outer Space. They are not the same thing. When you move your arm, you are moving it in Space. When you jump, run, or even use verbal communication, all these acts occur within Space. When you think of Space, it would be better to visualize your living space rather than Outer space. Space itself is not made of matter, but it has matter and non-matter. Pockets in space that have no matter are known as Vacuums, and the most notable vacuum you know of is Outer space.

The universe, on the other hand, depends on which definition you are using. The textbook definition of the universe is that it is everything that is, however, the one I use, is the universe is everything that is, was, or ever will be. The reason I subscribe to this theory is because it is fact that space itself is expanding. This space needs something to expand into, and I believe space is expanding into the universe. If you believe in the multiverse theory, then the universe, how I see it, is where all the multiverses are suspended in. Some call it nothingness, some call it the darkness we will never know, and I call it the universe itself.




If I haven't scared you off by now with my horrible scientific definitions, then rest assured that this is only what we currently know about our universe. There is more to it than just what know now, and we may never really know all there is about the universe, but we do know right from wrong and fact from fiction.
edit on 11-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Most people have many misconceptions about the Universe.
In grade school, very little is taught about it.

I've met many people who :

- believe the Sun revolves around the Earth
- think when it's a Full moon where they are, it must be a new moon on the other side of the Earth
- have no clue what "orbit" means
- cannot name all the planets in our solar system
- use the terms galaxy, universe, and solar system interchangeably
- don't know the meaning of light-year
- think the sky is blue because of light reflected from the oceans
- don't know that the Sun is a star
- have no idea of the distance to the Sun or Moon from Earth
- don't know the name of the first man to step on the Moon, nor the name "Apollo"

Sad, but true.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.

There are four forces (potentially 5) but only one of them is the electric field.

... & Mr T really didn't push the scientific boundaries that other contemporaries (James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwick Boltzman, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, Earnest Rutherford, Marie Curie & Hermann von Helmholtz) did.

edit on 11/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Hello,


firstly I wanted to thank you for the well written and thought out post.

I think you have done a good job at outlining a basic rundown of several modern scientific theories pertaining to the Universe for the average reader, be it only because you were bored...you still did a good job.



Your layered chart, makes me want to ask you this; what are your thoughts on String theory and Superstring theory?







S&F for the work put into this thread.

Thanks.


SS
edit on 093131p://pm3110 by Spike Spiegle because: s&f



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by mr10k
 


How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.


The difference is that one of those statements is an opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by mr10k
 


How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.

There are four forces (potentially 5) but only one of them is the electric field.

... & Mr T really didn't push the scientific boundaries that other contemporaries (James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwick Boltzman, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, Earnest Rutherford, Marie Curie & Hermann von Helmholtz) did.

edit on 11/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


You know chr0naut, I always love your posts, but I have to disagree with your stance on this one.

Tesla, or Mr. T as you eloquently put it, is who posited and demonstrated wireless electricity capability over 100 years ago, along with many other breakthroughs that were enough for the government to seize his work when he died. I would say that classifies for pushing the boundaries, especially considering that electricity running through wires was an amazing feat that had only been accomplished less than 100 years prior. He was experimenting and using the electrostatic field before the electron had even been discovered in 1897. Without his understanding of alternating current, you wouldn't have most of the technological marvels we have today.

Just recently in 2007, MIT re-invented Tesla's wireless technology with better efficiency, and acknowledged his work as pivotal in their paper, so he must be one of the greatest scientists in the world if he understood the science over 100 years ago?

Tesla was a brilliant man and you are doing him an injustice by knocking his work in comparison to the works of other great scientists. They all have their place in the name of furthering science and our understanding of the physical world, and I was a bit offended that just because people on ATS admire and respect his work, or categorize him as one of the great minds in science, that you'd throw him under the bus so easily.

The others you mentioned.... all brilliant people... but so was Tesla.

I wouldn't have included him as a "misconception" that people have about his abilities. Just sayin...

~Namaste



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
edit on 11-12-2012 by BacknTime because: (no reason given)


Phew!! finally after so much time trying to figure an easy way i finally got the image up thanks guys


Now......what was i going to explain again
.........
edit on 11-12-2012 by BacknTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


Sorry but we do not just exist in 3 Dimensions. Matter must have at the very least 10 or 11 dimensional states for it to exist. The Protons and Neutrons that exist in the nucleus of atoms are completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Leptons, Mesons, Gluons...etc.

These Quantum Particles that completely make up all matter and that includes you and me...need at the very least 10 or 11 dimensional states and perhaps more.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Spike Spiegle
 


how do you guys post images?? mine only sais link to image but it does not show the actual image on my post



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mr10k
 


Sorry but we do not just exist in 3 Dimensions. Matter must have at the very least 10 or 11 dimensional states for it to exist. The Protons and Neutrons that exist in the nucleus of atoms are completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Leptons, Mesons, Gluons...etc.

These Quantum Particles that completely make up all matter and that includes you and me...need at the very least 10 or 11 dimensional states and perhaps more.

Split Infinity



Not going to get into this because it is a matter of subjectivity and examination of current scientific theories, some of which I do not subscribe to.

reply to post by Spike Spiegle
 


Well, I was thinking of string theory when I was explaining the 3rd and 4th dimension. I haven't put much research into superstring theory, and that's the only reason I don't think too much about it when doing this kind of stuff. But string theory I have researched into and it's a little iffy to me. It's a very touchy subject, quantum mechanics, because variables can be easily disturbed on the quantum scale, as opposed to the general scale. I'm hesitant in trusting the current models because any number of independancies can attribute to a false reading on any quantum experiment, so right now I'm really waiting to see if they can get more information and also seeing experiments replicated and giving the same output. But at the same time I do believe string theory is stable as is, and does indeed explain the relationship between the universe itself and the dimensions within.

String theory depends more on an advancement in scientific programs and computers rather than an advancement in the experiments themselves.

The multiverse theory or parallel dimension theory is one I have no trouble with, I think it is also a stable theory, but it depends on string / superstring theory too much.
edit on 11-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BacknTime
 


Hello,

I shall refer to a great tool that should answer all your questions>>>Questions?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BacknTime
reply to post by Spike Spiegle
 


how do you guys post images?? mine only sais link to image but it does not show the actual image on my post


You can upload, like in the article Spike posted, or you can use [ ats][/ats] if it is offsite



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Misconception: The universe is 13 billion light-years big and we have the tools to see the center of the universe, but don't know where it is.

Truth is: The universe is only 13 billion (give or take) years old. This means we can only see up to 13 billion light-years away, but does not mean the universe is 13 billion light years wide (or long, whichever you prefer). Anything we see within this range is part of the observable universe, the part of the universe we can see.
Yeah it's a lot bigger, but I'm not sure why you didn't just say how big we estimate it to be.

Observable universe

The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years)
If that's true it's cool that we can see 12 billion year old light from something that's now maybe 40 billion light years away.

Regarding multiverses, it seems like we need new terminology for the concepts. If the universe is everything, you can't have two of them, because then it obviously wasn't everything.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yeah I saw that number but since it was just an estimate and I saw many numbers coming up I didn't think I should add it. I guess I'll add it in, doesn't matter that much I suppose.

And yeah, we need new terminology for not even some but a majority of the words we have in our scientific jargon



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by mr10k
 


How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.

There are four forces (potentially 5) but only one of them is the electric field.

... & Mr T really didn't push the scientific boundaries that other contemporaries (James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwick Boltzman, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, Earnest Rutherford, Marie Curie & Hermann von Helmholtz) did.

edit on 11/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


You know chr0naut, I always love your posts, but I have to disagree with your stance on this one.

Tesla, or Mr. T as you eloquently put it, is who posited and demonstrated wireless electricity capability over 100 years ago, along with many other breakthroughs that were enough for the government to seize his work when he died. I would say that classifies for pushing the boundaries, especially considering that electricity running through wires was an amazing feat that had only been accomplished less than 100 years prior. He was experimenting and using the electrostatic field before the electron had even been discovered in 1897. Without his understanding of alternating current, you wouldn't have most of the technological marvels we have today.

Just recently in 2007, MIT re-invented Tesla's wireless technology with better efficiency, and acknowledged his work as pivotal in their paper, so he must be one of the greatest scientists in the world if he understood the science over 100 years ago?

Tesla was a brilliant man and you are doing him an injustice by knocking his work in comparison to the works of other great scientists. They all have their place in the name of furthering science and our understanding of the physical world, and I was a bit offended that just because people on ATS admire and respect his work, or categorize him as one of the great minds in science, that you'd throw him under the bus so easily.

The others you mentioned.... all brilliant people... but so was Tesla.

I wouldn't have included him as a "misconception" that people have about his abilities. Just sayin...

~Namaste


Tesla's "wireless" electricity required a connection to ground, as that was one conductor of his system.

The MIT system is merely electrical inductance and does not require a ground path. Theirs and Teslas are two different technologies.

All of Tesla's technologies can be fully described by Maxwells Equations, which pre-existed Tesla going to university and were well before he produced anything of note.

Maxwell also (along with Boltzman) established the theory of electromagnetic waves and produced equations that described them, their propagation and many other details.

The electron was theorized by Richard Laming in 1838 (before Tesla was born). It was in 1897 that Thompson and his team of physicists identified the exact charge on the electron, which cemented its acceptance as a particle.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.

... & Mr T really didn't push the scientific boundaries that other contemporaries (James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwick Boltzman, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, Earnest Rutherford, Marie Curie & Hermann von Helmholtz) did.
I think Tesla was a great engineer, not a great scientist.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


So the universe actually IS finite.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Nicola Tesla WAS one of the greatest scientists that ever existed. In fact, part of the reason he died is because he sold his genius too cheaply in a dog-eat-dog world.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Cool thread.

Gives me something to ponder while away from the boards today.

Have a good 1.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by chr0naut
How about "Gravity is just another type of electric field" or "Nicola Tesla was one of the world's greatest scientists". I see this over and over again on ATS.

... & Mr T really didn't push the scientific boundaries that other contemporaries (James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwick Boltzman, Heinrich Hertz, Hendrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, Earnest Rutherford, Marie Curie & Hermann von Helmholtz) did.
I think Tesla was a great engineer, not a great scientist.


I agree, a great engineer or inventor.

I think part of the issue is a loose definition of a scientist.

Scientists make observations, theorize based upon those observations and then conduct experiments to validate, qualify and quantify their theory. This is the scientific process.

Tesla's work was all describable using existing theory and he really did not really push any boundaries in theoretical understanding.

It is interesting to note that his business partner, Westinghouse, was the first to build a solid state semiconductor diode for power applications, which he did long before meeting Tesla, and yet he is barely mentioned, and then only as a source of funding.

AC power would never have become viable without a means to rectify it back to useable DC where required and Westinghouse saw that Tesla's generator and his rectifier made a practical & commercial, engineering advancement.






top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def