I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes reality does seem to be rather infinite in nature.

Truth is we don't have the capacity to understand the grand scheme of the universe or the ability thus far to even design/build the tools to address the larger questions pertaining to the subject in question.

Please present the evidence.

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
a reply to: droid56


I believe i found this on IFLScince. The new theory is a super nova of sorts in the 4th dimension collapsed and exploded in our 3rd Dimension and poof! Big Bang.

So something else existed before the universe, from which our universe came.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're talking to a "person" (Mindless Drone) who is demanding evidence when he claims the world is 6000years old and there is no such thing as fossils and that natural diamonds do not require extreme heat and pressure to create them and can be done in under 10000 years and carbon dating is completely wrong.

The only good this "person" is for is smashing your head against a brick wall while you read the hypocritical arrogant smugness that comes off this "person" who demands proof from others but will never provide any himself and will go childlike insulting screaming when you prove him wrong.

The OP's poster may be as you say, but since they didn't make any mention of a 6000 year old world, an absence of fossils & etc, your observational bias is showing.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Indigo5

Math is certainly something i wish i had a better handle and understanding of.

Probably we utilize a base 10 number system down to our fingers really.

I don't think that playing with the bases in math will accomplish much more than we can do now.

We need a totally new paradigm to advance.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Phage

Not sure if you're a fan of wikipedia, but seems to have what I'm referring to -

Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists

en.wikipedia.org...

And the evidence for any other universe than our own?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Will the quality of the replacement universe be affected by anything we can do?

That was never elucidated (as far as I know).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the recesses of space, there isn't even friction to slow an object down. You send an object in motion in space and it'll keep moving (ex: planets). So where is the friction coefficient in space that would theoretically slow light down in the example you are pitching?

False.

There is friction in space, it is just very very very small.

a reply to: Indigo5

In truth it doesnt matter if you used base 10 or even base 60 the answers will still be the same. For example 2 apples there will always be 2 even if i call it something else.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Indigo5

In truth it doesnt matter if you used base 10 or even base 60 the answers will still be the same. For example 2 apples there will always be 2 even if i call it something else.

What about base Pi?

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: andy06shake

Now I am going to go a little off the reservation

Math as language of science...Base 10 vs. other systems and how our "language" employed effects perception and reality..

Humans did not see the color blue until we had a word for it..

www.sciencealert.com...

Physiologically, our eyes use rhodopsin which grants particular sensitivity to blue/green light. The experiment, which used the colour green as a control, is invalid because we also see mixtures of yellow and blue as green, as well as pure green light (which centres around 550 nm).

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the recesses of space, there isn't even friction to slow an object down. You send an object in motion in space and it'll keep moving (ex: planets). So where is the friction coefficient in space that would theoretically slow light down in the example you are pitching?

False.

There is friction in space, it is just very very very small.

This is a tough call though i guess technically your right the amount of friction is unmeasurable really. In the milky way for example the average is one atom per centimeter. However bear in mind we have gas clouds meaning other areas have nothing. And lets face it start a craft moving 1 atom per CM isnt going to slow anything down.

a reply to: droid56

It doesn't.

Their argument = At first, there was nothing. Then nothing blew up.

lol

WE'RE DEVINELY MADE!

peace

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Indigo5

In truth it doesnt matter if you used base 10 or even base 60 the answers will still be the same. For example 2 apples there will always be 2 even if i call it something else.

What about base Pi?

What about base e?

Does the base really matter if Eulers first identity e^(iπ)+1=0 ?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Indigo5

In truth it doesnt matter if you used base 10 or even base 60 the answers will still be the same. For example 2 apples there will always be 2 even if i call it something else.

What about base Pi?

What about base e?

Does the base really matter if Eulers first identity e^(iπ)+1=0 ?

Hitting the pause button while I research an equation that apparently includes both imaginary and irrational numbers?

Not sure if that disproves or proves my hypothesis that a new system of math is worth exploring?

a reply to: chr0naut

Gotta ask...

Hobby?

Or is your field perceptual psychology? Ophthalmology or Optical research?

originally posted by: chr0naut

And put bluntly...


The Natives they tested without a word for Blue?


Could not spot the square that was different on this screen..

a reply to: chr0naut

And for fun...

The same natives ...Who have many different names for green...could immediately spot the square that was different on this image..

can you?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

It's tough to even detect them and I believe it requires these GIANT contained rooms that shoot particles around hoping to catch one.

But I'm terrible at explaining this science, here are resources you can read up about them:
Wikipedia
Article from 1998 about the precision of the CNB
Can one measure the Cosmic Neutrino Background?

And here is Fobes on it:
Co smic Neutrinos Detected, Confirming The Big Bang's Last Great Prediction

As far as I can see, the evidence is inferred from CMB measurements (not of Neutrino measurements) and of a phase variance in measurement of vastly more energetic Neutrino species.

We know our detectors cannot measure down to the low levels of 3 degrees Kelvin, where the CNB should sit. We know that we have local Neutrino sources, such as the Sun which swamps our measurements with vastly more energetic events. We know that we have no directionality in Neutrino detection as most Neutrino's pass entirely through the Earth without interaction.

As far as I can see, the articles and papers you posted represent values determined theoretically rather than objective evidence and also builds on other theoretically obtained and unverified values such as dark matter and dark energy densities.

This is another example of the theoretical being called 'science' when the scientific method has not been applied.

a reply to: Indigo5

Its this one

I have believe in a theory of my own. Energy can't be created nor destroyed so the energy around us has always exited there for can't just come into being. As the universe expands more dark mater fills the empty space to the point where it's gravity starts to take into effect and we get squeezed back into a single point where that last bit of energy is eaten up then. BOOM start over. Again and again and again. You have to realize time is a human construct and only until time is removed from our equations will we truly see the universe for the way it is.

Or we came into being and will slowly expand until nothingness. That sounds to depressing.

I do believe our math is wrong and we all have absolutely no idea how any of this is run. One of the great mysteries that I hope will never be solved.