Let me guess:
"It blowed up real good!"
;-}
Posted on 02/16/2010 1:36:08 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Scientists don't know everything, therefore your bronze age horror fantasy is true. Right?
LOL .. THAT was GREAT!!
Scientists do not know everything.
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
Let me guess:
;-}
I think you are on to something. Clearly the device is too dangerous in the hands of egg-head scientists, but does their research activate a long-dormant space monster, cause the dead to rise as zombies, or does a routine experiment get out of hand-like small piece of cellophane from a bannana & balogney sandwich jamming a safety switch open- causing world-wide apocalypse, which one?
The Big Bang has a series of major problems. One of the biggest is that there are portions of the universe now so far away from each that they couldn’t have been in contact with each other 14.7 or so billion years ago. i.e., if you look out into the universe in one direction 14.7 billion light-years, and then the opposite 14.7 bil, the two regions are ~29.4 billion light-years from each. Yet the uniformity of the leftover radiation from the Big Bang (Microwave Background Radiation) suggests that these regions were indeed once linked. This is one of the primary reasons why “Inflation Theory” was invented. To create a period of many-times-faster-than-light expansion. Although physical objects cannot travel *through* space at speeds faster than light (actually cannot be *accelerated* to such speeds), space-time expansion, in theory, has no such speed limit, because it doesn’t involve physical objects (anything with mass that is) moving *through* space. This problem is called the ‘Horizon Problem’.
There is so much to learn about the Universe. They keep revising the age every year between 13-15 billion years. This is where the scientific method comes in.Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
The standard cosmological model is the "big bang", and while the evidence supporting that model is enormous, it is not without problems. Trefil in The Moment of Creation does a nice job of pointing out those problems.
| 1. The Antimatter Problem |
| 2. The Galaxy Formation Problem |
| 3. The Horizon Problem |
| 4. The Flatness Problem |
Always thought that Guth took the "Spooky action at a distance" quantum problem and solved a very similar problem on the cosmic scale by invoking inflation.
I have my doubts about what kicked off inflation or for that matter what stopped it.
While all those are a possibility, I'm more worried that a tear in the space-time continuum might allow this...
...to flood our universe from adjoining parallel universes, which would lead to an unstoppable double-top-secret-super majority. Lord help us all, then.
Its a possibility.
Damn ace, you done brought us from weird cosmology stuff to even weirder cosmetology stuff.
Quite quickly if the surface area is significant compared to the volume, as it would be in this case.
You can't, at least I've never heard of anyone claiming that you can. While the universe was in thermal equilibrium the first few hundred thousand years after the big bang, it wasn't possible to see anything.
The echoes of that *are* visible as the cosmic microwave background radiation.
“Approximately equal to the amount of CO2 induced global warming since 1900.”
LOL! Good one!
I’m simply saying that, the further you look into the universe, the further back in time you ‘see’. And if you can ‘look’ back to 14.7 or so billion years ago, you would ‘see’ the very beginning of the universe, a time when it was many many many times smaller than it is now. But then, how can you come across this exceedingly smaller universe looking 14.7 billion light-years in every possible direction??? The Hubble Space Telescope, long ago, has imaged galaxies nearly 14 billion or so light-years distant.
Temperature was not the only condition present during the big bang. We can recreate the temperature of the Sun without recreating it, you need a few other conditions like mass and gravity.
To simplify things, all that matters is that the further you look back into the universe, the further back in time you see. And the further back in time (ie, the younger the universe), the smaller universe was. But how can you look out greater and greater distances and see something getting smaller and smaller?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.