To achieve escape velocity from the universe itself is a mind-boggling concept. Okay, assume that it can be done (or has been done). Where does the matter go? Does it simply spread and cool? If so, what happens when black holes get hold of it? Recompression!
What happens when black holes get hold of other black holes? Does the bigger suck in the smaller? Do they combine into a super black hole? Are they the force behind my theory that the universe will recompress itself for another bang?
Any theory can be worked and reworked to provide answers that we already have. How do we know we can use it to extrapolate the answers that we don't have?
Hasn't the scientific method taught us anything?
on
Dark Matter Measurements
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
[two coincidentally matching results] != [answer of all space and time]
Only further testing will be able to prove that this match is not simply coincidence. They're right, this doesn't "have to be the answer", so let's not jump to conclusions from two friendly tests. (But certainly get excited for the potential! Heh.)
It was not nuclear in origin, I would guess, but when the exploding particles began to fuse together into what are now called protons, neutrons, atoms, etc.... That is why it is referred to as a nuclear explosion.
Of course, it had to fuse into all those other tiny particles that make up the protons and neutrons first, but why would they want to bore us by explaining all of that too? My question in relation to that: How small was this "stuff" before the explosion? Would it be fair to wonder if it had been rapidly exploding outward from a much smaller size than we could possibly imagine for much longer than we think?
I would rather suggest that it's the best we've got right now, and it will have to hold until we develop it further and either prove it correct or prove it incorrect (or wrongly accept or discard it).
That something is difficult to accept does not mean that I won't, but that it is accepted by others does not mean that it must be accepted. There is no proof for any of this - it's all largely theoretical. We take in the evidence and believe what makes sense to us. That's the beauty of it, I think. When enough reasoning comes through to discard old theories, the new ones will take over, but there will always be others to share the limelight. Still, you make a good point...
"Dark matter" does not mean to me that it is all that different. It simply means that we do not have any supply of it, and therefore no means to study or to detect it, and so we only know that it is there, but not of what it consists, and so on. By that reasoning, therefore, I conclude that there is only one kind of "dark matter", and that it is essentially the same stuff from which "normal" matter is derived (according to the space.com article).
Still, it's all very confusing. I don't think it's a "serious problem", because the assumption seems to me to be that much of the dark matter has not materialized into what we recognize as matter yet. This means that the universe is young yet... When we reach the point when normal matter and dark matter are split 50/50, then my guess is that the universe will begin to shrink back toward its state before the big bang, only to explode all over again. Of course our planet will be long gone by that time (but that doesn't mean we have to go with it)...
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
My beliefs are along those lines, but there are always bits of the argument that make no sense, largely because human thought is unable to comprehend the truth behind it (which is why we don't know the answers).
For instance, say that the universe does go on forever. The concept of infinite space is easy enough to grasp, I think, but wouldn't that mean that there is a point somewhere were matter just doesn't reach? I mean, is matter infinite too? How cuold that be possible? Unless, of course, space is directly proportional to matter in the same incomprehensible manner - space is infinite just as matter is infinite, and neither can be explained by our extremely limited scope.
"I hope you don't think that because most events have causes they all do. That's a bit like thinking that all integers are non-zero because most of them are."
I was going to argue against that, but then it hit me: that's a pretty deep statement. I'm not touching it. Well said, my friend.
However, I do believe that things must have a cause. If it has no cause, then what is its reason for having no cause? Everything has a reason, even if it is a loophole. God either does or does not exist, but there is a reason for it. The big bang theory either is or is not true, but there is a reason for it.
I mean, com'on, things are event-driven or object-oriented, and without objects, one must only assume that an event triggered what was to follow - the big bang. Something was there to explode, and something had to cause it. Did one of the tiny dark matter particles spark up the wrong way and set it off?
I guess we can apply the same reasoning to the inception of the big bang as to the reasoning for what we think will happen after the great universal black hole sucks it back in: We don't know, we can't know, we won't know, so why worry about it?
"They aren't just pulling the numbers out of thin air."
Heh. What's the difference, if it's all just theoretical anyway? I mean, really, how is the amount of matter in the universe ever going to mean anything more to us than simply a numerical value?
Of course, one can assume that, by knowing the ammounts of normal matter compared to dark matter as they change, scientist could predict approximately when the universe would collapse on itself. You know, if the big bang theory has any truth to it. Of course, that prediction wouldn't mean much to us either, as our sun will likely die out long before the universe itself will.
Let me guess, you didn't read the article, and therefore have no clue how such measurements are made, and rushed your reply in so that you could nab a first post? Here, let me help you out:
According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons. The explosion was so energetic that nothing could come together close enough, for long enough, to form atoms. But the universe expanded and cooled so rapidly that within three minutes protons and neutrons bonded in twos and fours, and formed all the atomic nuclei in the universe. This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist.
Just how much matter that was can be estimated from observing the most recently formed stars and galaxies, because they are fueled by the hydrogen atoms formed from those original nuclei of twos.
Fields explained that young stars, like our Sun, are just now fusing that original hydrogen into helium whereas older stars fuse helium into oxygen and iron. Because the hydrogen fuel has not been converted, scientists are able to measure the proportion of original normal matter to dark matter.
Okay, I just read the article, and I'm down with it. There is nothing illogical about it, assuming their methods actually work, and I have no evidence that they don't. But, after re-reading the section on the "Creation of normal matter", I have one complex question that I hope can spark a bit of discussion:
What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?
And how on earth (pun intended) did we get here from all of that?:-)
I think it will be closer than that. I would guess that they'll all be pretty damn close to even, with a slight advantage for GameCube and its lower price. GameCube ~40%, PS2 ~35%, Xbox ~25%.
The GameCube will appeal to parents everywhere, especially for the price. The PS2 will appeal to those with the money who want an established machine with an established library of games. The Xbox... well, I work at Electronics Boutique, and the thing doesn't impress me. I'm being nice, though.
What is the best way in Windows ME to reduce file cluster size from 32KB to 4KB? Every installation of Windows ME I have used (except this one) uses 4KB clusters, but my newest system uses 32KB clusters, which makes for a lot of wasted space on the hard drive.
I have Partition Magic 7, but I have not installed it. Is that my best bet? Or is there an easier method?
Unfortunately, I don't have the money for a hard drive dedicated to such a task or the capacity to simply copy CDs/DVDs to a hard drive specifically for such a task. I would rather use hard drive space for storage of files that I use more than occasionally, and keep software packages and such on their discs.
My work happens to require Publisher. My work with Visual Studio (or was it Virtual? can't remember which) happens to require something from all the disks.
Otherwise, you're definitely right. I don't even own a DVD-ROM drive in this machine, but I do have a slot just under my CD-RW waiting for a good deal to come along! Until then, I really have no problem loading 2 to 4 CDs for one software suite, but once the DVD becomes the standard, I might complain about going back...
I suppose this has little direct bearing on other wares, but I also suppose that others will follow suit. I would love to be able - just once - to install Microsoft Office Professional, or Visual Studio, or any other suite of several CDs from just one disc.
Of course, as the DVD-ROM slowly becomes the software standard for such massive space requirements, I don't think that will a problem. In the meantime, how are DVDR drives' prices doing?
I've never thought that humor should be a quality to be looked for when moderating anyway. If something is so gosh-darn funny that it needs to be modded up, someone will mod it up as "underrated" or otherwise. Simply put, I don't think that funny things that contribute in no other ways are useful for discussion.
Besides, funny things are generally "interesting", so why not come up with another adjective for modding up or get rid of "funny" altogether? Just a suggestion.
A separate and private internet for the government is an excellent idea. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that the government should have nothing to hide from its citizens, there are often details of life that necessarily must be kept from citizens in order to keep things... smooth. National security is a very touch subject, and conspiracy theorists may swear that GOVNet is just another weapon of the "Leviathan" government of ours to make itself stronger or better. I might agree that our government is too large and too strong in too many ways, but I think we can agree that a secure information network is a necessity.
As someone who believes it to be every person's (age 18+) responsibility as a participant in a democratic government to keep up with the events surrounding the country and its government, I have been addicted to the news - really information in general - since I was about sixteen.
Maybe that's the advantage of being a computer nerd... The information is easier to get to, making it easier to become addicted... Er, maybe that's not an advantage.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, but that does not address my question of infinite time, space, or matter, likely due to a misinterpretation on my part...
So, what is outside the balloon? Anti-space?
What happens when black holes get hold of other black holes? Does the bigger suck in the smaller? Do they combine into a super black hole? Are they the force behind my theory that the universe will recompress itself for another bang?
Any theory can be worked and reworked to provide answers that we already have. How do we know we can use it to extrapolate the answers that we don't have?
Only further testing will be able to prove that this match is not simply coincidence. They're right, this doesn't "have to be the answer", so let's not jump to conclusions from two friendly tests. (But certainly get excited for the potential! Heh.)
Of course, it had to fuse into all those other tiny particles that make up the protons and neutrons first, but why would they want to bore us by explaining all of that too? My question in relation to that: How small was this "stuff" before the explosion? Would it be fair to wonder if it had been rapidly exploding outward from a much smaller size than we could possibly imagine for much longer than we think?
I would rather suggest that it's the best we've got right now, and it will have to hold until we develop it further and either prove it correct or prove it incorrect (or wrongly accept or discard it).
That something is difficult to accept does not mean that I won't, but that it is accepted by others does not mean that it must be accepted. There is no proof for any of this - it's all largely theoretical. We take in the evidence and believe what makes sense to us. That's the beauty of it, I think. When enough reasoning comes through to discard old theories, the new ones will take over, but there will always be others to share the limelight. Still, you make a good point...
Still, it's all very confusing. I don't think it's a "serious problem", because the assumption seems to me to be that much of the dark matter has not materialized into what we recognize as matter yet. This means that the universe is young yet... When we reach the point when normal matter and dark matter are split 50/50, then my guess is that the universe will begin to shrink back toward its state before the big bang, only to explode all over again. Of course our planet will be long gone by that time (but that doesn't mean we have to go with it)... "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."
For instance, say that the universe does go on forever. The concept of infinite space is easy enough to grasp, I think, but wouldn't that mean that there is a point somewhere were matter just doesn't reach? I mean, is matter infinite too? How cuold that be possible? Unless, of course, space is directly proportional to matter in the same incomprehensible manner - space is infinite just as matter is infinite, and neither can be explained by our extremely limited scope.
I was going to argue against that, but then it hit me: that's a pretty deep statement. I'm not touching it. Well said, my friend.
However, I do believe that things must have a cause. If it has no cause, then what is its reason for having no cause? Everything has a reason, even if it is a loophole. God either does or does not exist, but there is a reason for it. The big bang theory either is or is not true, but there is a reason for it.
I mean, com'on, things are event-driven or object-oriented, and without objects, one must only assume that an event triggered what was to follow - the big bang. Something was there to explode, and something had to cause it. Did one of the tiny dark matter particles spark up the wrong way and set it off?
I guess we can apply the same reasoning to the inception of the big bang as to the reasoning for what we think will happen after the great universal black hole sucks it back in: We don't know, we can't know, we won't know, so why worry about it?
Because it's damn fun!
Heh. What's the difference, if it's all just theoretical anyway? I mean, really, how is the amount of matter in the universe ever going to mean anything more to us than simply a numerical value?
Of course, one can assume that, by knowing the ammounts of normal matter compared to dark matter as they change, scientist could predict approximately when the universe would collapse on itself. You know, if the big bang theory has any truth to it. Of course, that prediction wouldn't mean much to us either, as our sun will likely die out long before the universe itself will.
Okay, I just read the article, and I'm down with it. There is nothing illogical about it, assuming their methods actually work, and I have no evidence that they don't. But, after re-reading the section on the "Creation of normal matter", I have one complex question that I hope can spark a bit of discussion: And how on earth (pun intended) did we get here from all of that?
The GameCube will appeal to parents everywhere, especially for the price. The PS2 will appeal to those with the money who want an established machine with an established library of games. The Xbox ... well, I work at Electronics Boutique, and the thing doesn't impress me. I'm being nice, though.
I have Partition Magic 7, but I have not installed it. Is that my best bet? Or is there an easier method?
Thanks for the info. I'll look into it. I've got Best Buy, Circuit City, and other similar places in the area...
Unfortunately, I don't have the money for a hard drive dedicated to such a task or the capacity to simply copy CDs/DVDs to a hard drive specifically for such a task. I would rather use hard drive space for storage of files that I use more than occasionally, and keep software packages and such on their discs.
Otherwise, you're definitely right. I don't even own a DVD-ROM drive in this machine, but I do have a slot just under my CD-RW waiting for a good deal to come along! Until then, I really have no problem loading 2 to 4 CDs for one software suite, but once the DVD becomes the standard, I might complain about going back...
I suppose this has little direct bearing on other wares, but I also suppose that others will follow suit. I would love to be able - just once - to install Microsoft Office Professional, or Visual Studio, or any other suite of several CDs from just one disc.
Of course, as the DVD-ROM slowly becomes the software standard for such massive space requirements, I don't think that will a problem. In the meantime, how are DVDR drives' prices doing?
I've never thought that humor should be a quality to be looked for when moderating anyway. If something is so gosh-darn funny that it needs to be modded up, someone will mod it up as "underrated" or otherwise. Simply put, I don't think that funny things that contribute in no other ways are useful for discussion.
Besides, funny things are generally "interesting", so why not come up with another adjective for modding up or get rid of "funny" altogether? Just a suggestion.
Henry Ford is rolling over in his grave...
A separate and private internet for the government is an excellent idea. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that the government should have nothing to hide from its citizens, there are often details of life that necessarily must be kept from citizens in order to keep things ... smooth. National security is a very touch subject, and conspiracy theorists may swear that GOVNet is just another weapon of the "Leviathan" government of ours to make itself stronger or better. I might agree that our government is too large and too strong in too many ways, but I think we can agree that a secure information network is a necessity.
We? As in the "individuals" of America who, rather than thinking for themselves, take someone's idea and follow it?
I like to think that I think for myself. Boycotting a company over a patent is, um, ridiculous?
As someone who believes it to be every person's (age 18+) responsibility as a participant in a democratic government to keep up with the events surrounding the country and its government, I have been addicted to the news - really information in general - since I was about sixteen.
:)
Maybe that's the advantage of being a computer nerd... The information is easier to get to, making it easier to become addicted... Er, maybe that's not an advantage.