Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Earth

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
April 2, 2012 2:05:26 PM

Has the weight or mass of the earth changed in the last 100, 500, 1000, etc, years? More, less, or the same?

More about : earth

April 2, 2012 3:25:43 PM

According to the best estimates, the Earth gains roughly 1,000 tons a year from space dust making its way to the surface.
Related resources
April 2, 2012 4:51:37 PM

Whats the cubic area of 4 1/2 trillion tons of space dust?
April 2, 2012 4:53:52 PM

I did not reealize we accumulated that much space dust.

Space is pretty freaking awesome.
April 3, 2012 12:02:16 PM

Explains why my grandma was always dusting.
April 3, 2012 8:13:02 PM

As long as standard changes in the universe apply: Yes. we shall gain mass. until we displace that mass in the form of satellites and shuttles/rockets/Star Ships...(think Enterprise.)

What we need to look at is the Moon...our Moon. how does mass change affect us?

When looking at evolution...don't just look at a small area of the picture...look as the whole gallery!
April 3, 2012 8:34:11 PM

gallery = galaxy i take it?

Yes, indeed.

I think I read something somewhere that billions of years from now, the Milky Way is going to collide with another galaxy.
April 3, 2012 8:43:53 PM

But I heard we're all going to be dead in 100 years from man-made climate change. :) 
April 3, 2012 9:34:18 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
gallery = galaxy i take it?

Yes, indeed.

I think I read something somewhere that billions of years from now, the Milky Way is going to collide with another galaxy.



I was referring to how narrow minded some individuals are in the scientific community. Just because one thing happens does not mean that is the only thing that occurred. There is more to see that may explain what you are looking at...maybe the answers you are looking for will be revealed!

I also heard, read, and was taught that in the next (x) billion years, the sun will go Supernovae on us.

NOTE: The (x) is an arbitrary number not yet finalized; somewhere between 1-10 i assume.
April 3, 2012 9:37:13 PM

The sun is a star. It happens. Everything is a cycle.
April 3, 2012 9:44:26 PM

I know that. that is why I referenced the Supernovae to OMG.

Our Sun is Very young.
April 4, 2012 12:18:56 PM

Our sun is very old.
April 5, 2012 3:28:04 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
gallery = galaxy i take it?

Yes, indeed.

I think I read something somewhere that billions of years from now, the Milky Way is going to collide with another galaxy.


That would be the Andromeda galaxy, but since a galaxy is something like 99.9999% space that is empty except for interstellar gas molecules every so often, there won't be any fireworks like stars smacking into each other. There would be a fairly good possibility of the Oort cloud of comets and proto-planets getting disturbed by a passing star or two, which would mean lots of comets bombarding the inner planets, however. But hopefully in 2 billion years or so, we all would have learned to get along with each other and thus develop a planet-wide errant comet detection and deflection system..
April 5, 2012 3:48:28 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
That would be the Andromeda galaxy, but since a galaxy is something like 99.9999% space that is empty except for interstellar gas molecules every so often, there won't be any fireworks like stars smacking into each other. There would be a fairly good possibility of the Oort cloud of comets and proto-planets getting disturbed by a passing star or two, which would mean lots of comets bombarding the inner planets, however. But hopefully in 2 billion years or so, we all would have learned to get along with each other and thus develop a planet-wide errant comet detection and deflection system..


Was just about to say Andromeda, +1 on that!

For a very interesting simulation of our galaxy is readily available and pretty cheap if you compare it with similar pieces of software (although this is more aimed at gamers):

http://universesandbox.com/


Just watch the quick video on their homepage, it's great!
April 5, 2012 1:32:47 PM

The universe is still expanding. They can trace back all known stars to a central location which provides the theory for the "Big Bang." Oddly enough, that's as far as astromoners and scientists can take it. This is also where portions of the Bible is claimed to begin.

Today's astrophysics and the Bible both come to the exact same conclusion. The Big Bang theory. That is a bit freaky. Information on the subject can be found by research Reva Williams, the author of the Penrose Theory.
April 5, 2012 1:59:53 PM

The 'Big Bang' was actually a rapid expansion of then generates mass as defined for its time. Basically, light was being emitted form the 'center' of the 'explosion'

Where in the Bible is there a source referring to the mass expansion of electromagnetic energy in space?
April 5, 2012 2:15:28 PM

According to Reva Williams, they are only able to trace the universe back to the central location where the initial big bang occurred. Everything is expanding from that point. At that point there the light disappears that they use to calculate various astrophyic 'stuff.'

This has only been truly discovered in our life time essentially. The Bible is much older. Reva is religious and became an astrophysist to prove that God exists. I must point that part out as I am only pointing out her argument as she relayed it to me.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

This, according to her and her personal belief, is the start of the Big Bang. She, being the subject matter expert in astrophysics, can say better than anyone else, that the scientific community agrees that everything, including light, all started, to the best of their knowledge and abilities in the subject, at a single point. Prior to that event they are unable to find any other form or sources of light.

Given that information in the way she relays it and in her context, you gotta admit that it is pretty significant and intriguing.
April 5, 2012 2:49:31 PM

Are you sure that the bible gives proofs of the big bang or is that what you would like it to say? This is a tricky road because if we start taking the bible literally then we have to take the other things the bible says literally.
April 5, 2012 2:55:22 PM

Uh, no? I'm not taking it literally. I thought the idea was God was too great for man to understand and as another person, dictating through God, wrote their share of the Bible to relay to man. God didn't write the Bible. Man wrote the Bible, supposedly through God, in a way that man could understand it.

"God said it would be, so it would be" type thing. They were not in a position to question it.

That being said, do you question that the sky exists? Or that there is 'light' and 'dark' and that birds fly in the sky?
April 5, 2012 3:02:23 PM

Light exists technically dark is just the absence of visible light. Birds fly in the sky not because it was made so but through millions of years of evolution. Why would god be so specific with the details of nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity but so vague with the life he created. And then just kinda stopped hanging out with us.
April 5, 2012 3:12:52 PM

This falsely attributed to Albert Einstein, but thought provoking nonetheless.

This has a thought provoking message no matter how you believe. Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?
A student bravely replied yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes, sir," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil."
The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.

The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does".

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
April 5, 2012 3:38:49 PM

wanamingo said:
Light exists technically dark is just the absence of visible light. Birds fly in the sky not because it was made so but through millions of years of evolution. Why would god be so specific with the details of nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity but so vague with the life he created. And then just kinda stopped hanging out with us.


Where is he specific about any of that stuff? It basically states it is what it is. Again, we are not as significant as we think we are.

Because the book states that there was then light.. is not different than stating that a bird flies. There is no time frame within the Bible of 'God's work.'
April 5, 2012 4:49:14 PM

Since this is a religion thread let me ask some questions. Ill try to be as polite as possible and sensitive, but you know where I stand.

Different translations of the Bible, something like over 200 currently. Are these accurate? We have translated Latin into multiple forms of English, Greek, Hebrew. The bible that Jesus immediate followers would have preached could be very different from what we read today. Especially once we get into nuances. The Dead Sea scrolls "Supposedly" have some Bible extras, stories that weren't told or were combined names changed etc does this affect accuracy?

What about those really odd rules in the bible? I think there is a stipulation saying if you are male and your genitals are not intact then you cant be admitted to heaven. Or your obligation to throw stones at adulterers. Is this a breakdown in translation or would God seriously be pissed if you didn't follow some bizarre rules?

April 5, 2012 4:58:37 PM

The short answer is no, it's not accurate.

The old testament was originally written in Aramaic, translated to Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then to the Germanic languages (French, Spanish, Italian, English, etc.) Then it was re-written by King James who had entire books removed from the orignal story. (14 in total IIRC). Can anyone say "lost in translation"?

The significant thing that stands out to me is in KJV bible, when God says "I will make man in MY own image". Well, in the Aramaic and early Hewbrew versions of the old testament, the text is "WE will make man in OUR image" meaning that God was more than just one being and lends some evidence to the existence of the Nephilim and the Annunaki, IMO.

Knowing this, how many other things are wrong or interpreted wrongly in the KJV?
April 5, 2012 5:10:12 PM

Mostly its accurate.
The words used were words that fit in any sentence, but are intechangeable, tho the sentence is still the same.

Id like to see the King James omissions

We can also mean, as accepted by the church, and dont know how the Jews explain this, is the trinity
April 5, 2012 5:40:53 PM

Lost books mentioned in the bible but do not actually appear in the KJV.

Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)
Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13)
Book of the Acts of Solomon (1st Kings 11:41)
Book of Samuel the Seer (1st Chr. 29:29)
Book of Gad the Seer (1st Chr. 29:29)
Book of Nathan the Prophet (1st Chr. 29:29)
Prophecy of Ahijah (2nd Chr. 9:29)
Visions of Ido the Seer (2nd Chr. 9:29)
Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)
Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34)
Saying of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
Epistle of Paul (1 Cor. 5:9)
Epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16)
Prophecies to Enoch (Jude 1:14)

Check this page out for lots of good stuff on the origins of religion.

http://jordanmaxwell.com/Religion.html
April 5, 2012 6:14:41 PM

dogman_1234 said:
The 'Big Bang' was actually a rapid expansion of then generates mass as defined for its time. Basically, light was being emitted form the 'center' of the 'explosion'

Where in the Bible is there a source referring to the mass expansion of electromagnetic energy in space?


"And God said, Let There Be Light!" or something similar.. In the book of Genesis, and rather appropriately, near the beginning :D ..

Actually physics can only trace the big bang back to something like 10^-43 seconds, where time itself began and the universe was maybe the size of a basketball or softball, I forget which. Then around 10 eons later, 10^-33 seconds or so, gravity separated out from the other 3 forces and the universe expanded exponentially to something like 10^1000 times, spacetime carrying along with it all the original matter in the universe but then adding in a huge amount more as matter 'condensed' out of the energy released by the expansion.

So, it makes no sense to talk about a time before the Big Bang, since time itself did not exist. So the universe prior to the BB was "without form" as also described in Genesis..

However it does make sense to talk about the end of the universe. Prior to the discovery of dark energy (the force many scientists postulate as causing the acceleration of matter away from itself, sorta like the inflationary epoch but in slo-mo), cosmologists thought there wasn't enough matter (both visible and dark) to keep the universe from expanding forever. Dark energy just speeds up the timetable. Anyway, before the last red dwarfs wink out and the "Light" is extinguished forever, some future descendant of humanity would only see our galaxy, or a portion thereof, in the night sky. Everything else would have receded over the cosmological event horizon, lost forever. After that, even galactic-sized black holes would evaporate, providing brief sparks in the otherwise perpetual darkness. If the proton is unstable as some theorize, then maybe it too would eventually evaporate into quarks, in about 10^150 years from now. So all that would be left would be a thin quark soup and the universe would be at maximum entropy. More importantly, all information (history) would be gone as well, so if you believe you have an immortal soul consisting of your 'essence' or the sum total of information about you & your life, it won't be found in this universe..
April 5, 2012 6:20:50 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
"And God said, Let There Be Light!" or something similar.. In the book of Genesis, and rather appropriately, near the beginning :D ..

Actually physics can only trace the big bang back to something like 10^-43 seconds, where time itself began and the universe was maybe the size of a basketball or softball, I forget which. Then around 10 eons later, 10^-33 seconds or so, gravity separated out from the other 3 forces and the universe expanded exponentially to something like 10^1000 times, spacetime carrying along with it all the original matter in the universe but then adding in a huge amount more as matter 'condensed' out of the energy released by the expansion.

So, it makes no sense to talk about a time before the Big Bang, since time itself did not exist. So the universe prior to the BB was "without form" as also described in Genesis..

However it does make sense to talk about the end of the universe. Prior to the discovery of dark energy (the force many scientists postulate as causing the acceleration of matter away from itself, sorta like the inflationary epoch but in slo-mo), cosmologists thought there wasn't enough matter (both visible and dark) to keep the universe from expanding forever. Dark energy just speeds up the timetable. Anyway, before the last red dwarfs wink out and the "Light" is extinguished forever, some future descendant of humanity would only see our galaxy, or a portion thereof, in the night sky. Everything else would have receded over the cosmological event horizon, lost forever. After that, even galactic-sized black holes would evaporate, providing brief sparks in the otherwise perpetual darkness. If the proton is unstable as some theorize, then maybe it too would eventually evaporate into quarks, in about 10^150 years from now. So all that would be left would be a thin quark soup and the universe would be at maximum entropy. More importantly, all information (history) would be gone as well, so if you believe you have an immortal soul consisting of your 'essence' or the sum total of information about you & your life, it won't be found in this universe..



Touching on one point. The expansion of the universe is slowing based on the information gathered. The concept in play currently is that as the universe is spreading from the big bang, it will slow down eventually, then stop, and reverse the order and slowly start pulling back together. In billions of eons or whatever, the process restarts.
April 5, 2012 6:25:34 PM

wanamingo said:
Since this is a religion thread let me ask some questions. Ill try to be as polite as possible and sensitive, but you know where I stand.

Different translations of the Bible, something like over 200 currently. Are these accurate? We have translated Latin into multiple forms of English, Greek, Hebrew. The bible that Jesus immediate followers would have preached could be very different from what we read today. Especially once we get into nuances. The Dead Sea scrolls "Supposedly" have some Bible extras, stories that weren't told or were combined names changed etc does this affect accuracy?

What about those really odd rules in the bible? I think there is a stipulation saying if you are male and your genitals are not intact then you cant be admitted to heaven. Or your obligation to throw stones at adulterers. Is this a breakdown in translation or would God seriously be pissed if you didn't follow some bizarre rules?


The bible was written by man and is therefore flawed. Much of the Bible are writings of the apostles to other people or church segments instructing them on what they thought to be the correct process. Only short time after Jesus was killed, the 'church' he built was destroyed and those he taught were killed. Therefore, the Bible is not correct.

Enter the Book of Mormon. The book explains that the Bible is flawed and the that Book of Mormom is there to help fill in blanks. In the Mormon religion, their book is considered the most accurate book (when compared to other scrolls and the Bible).

Man assembled the Bible through writings of those who were supposedly touched by God or called upon. The writings were considered great enough to assemble and put together. When amassed, it tells many stories, teaches lessons, and establishes a society.
April 5, 2012 7:17:17 PM

riser said:
Touching on one point. The expansion of the universe is slowing based on the information gathered. The concept in play currently is that as the universe is spreading from the big bang, it will slow down eventually, then stop, and reverse the order and slowly start pulling back together. In billions of eons or whatever, the process restarts.


Ive read the current theory is heat death, since the universe is actually expanding faster. Im more of a proponent of a multiverse theory or superstring.

How do you guys feel about heaven and hell?

I took some latin in HIgh school and I can say first hand what a pain that language is. Its very nuanced especially when tenses change depending on social status or the number of people you are talking too. This is what makes it so hard to translate and capture the original intention.

Can someone expand on these verses?

Deuteronomy 23:1
A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off must not be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

April 5, 2012 7:46:43 PM

I'm no bible scholar.

As to the Deuteronomy passage. I know that Judaism and Christianity are masculine religions. The phallus symbol appears throughtout antiquity in rituals, worship, art, sculptures, and symbolism. Even modern church steeples are phallic symbols.

That passage may be referencing this in that if your masculinity is somehow damaged, then you will be unable to take part in the ancient sexual rituals worshippers used to engage in to become closer to Yahweh or God.
April 5, 2012 8:04:53 PM

Thats the thing that gets me is I dont think God meant literally if you get you nuts chopped off you cant get into heaven. So what exactly is he trying to say?

Or that if you don't stone adulterers or work on a Sunday its a sin.

The problem I have with Bible interpretations is Some people use it as justification for oppression. For example homosexuals. It does say in the bible something to the effect "A man laying with another man as he lays with a woman is a sin." But no one follows the other obscure rules. You think if this were passed down from God himself he would have expected all of the little rules to be followed. Not just the ones that are socially convenient.
April 5, 2012 8:05:55 PM

riser said:
Touching on one point. The expansion of the universe is slowing based on the information gathered. The concept in play currently is that as the universe is spreading from the big bang, it will slow down eventually, then stop, and reverse the order and slowly start pulling back together. In billions of eons or whatever, the process restarts.


That was the theory some decades ago, when cosmologists didn't know how much matter there was in the universe. If it exceeded the critical point, which is where the universe has exactly enough mass-energy in it that it would asymptotically approach the 'steady state' - neither expand nor contract - then the universe would indeed stop expanding and start contracting.

However since then they have found out that the universe is far, far short of the mass & energy needed to achieve the critical point, even including so-called dark matter. So the universe would continue expanding forever, albeit slowing down due to the gravitational attraction of the mass-energy within it.

When you throw in dark energy, which some think is the so-called vacuum energy due to the uncertainty principle, where a particle and its matching anti-particle spontaneously arise in a vacuum then extinguish themselves when they merge back together, the universe is actually accelerating its expansion. Scientists have actually measure this energy using two flat plates suspended in a vacuum, then measuring the forces arising between the two as they vary the distance. Once you subtract out the mutual gravitational attraction, there is a mysterious repulsion found when the plates are extremely close together (in the micron range IIRC). Supposedly that is the distance range in which the particle-antiparticle pair exist before annihilating each other.

The data supporting this dark energy concept comes from measuring red shifts of type-II supernovae (the ones where white dwarf stars accrete mass from a companion star that eventually causes the dwarf star to exceed the Chandresekar mass limit and then explode). This is a so-called standard candle because it doesnt' matter how small the dwarf star is originally - once it gets up to a fairly exact mass limit, it explodes and thus the energy output is about the same for all such instances.

According to Hubble's law, the further away an object is from us, the greater its red-shift - where light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum due to the object receding more rapidly the further it is away. IIRC there as a lot of research going on in the mid-to-late '90s, trying to pin down the Hubble constant, which determines the amount of redshift vs. distance, but until they came up with the idea of using type-II supernovae standard candles, they had to depend on other phenomena such as Wolf-Rayet stars, which have a cyclic variation in brightness that corresponds to their mass. Once you know a star's mass you know its intrinsic brightness, and thus its distance from you by comparing intrinsic to actual brightness.

However Wolf-Rayet stars are only good out to a billion light years or so, since they become too dim to measure beyond that. So a much brighter standard candle was needed; hence the type-II supernovae where the exploding dwarf emits as much light as its entire home galaxy does for a short while. Thus it can be seen as far out as an entire galaxy can - maybe 10 billion light years or so.

Once the data from the new standard candles was obtained, cosmologists found a discrepancy between the expected Hubble constant and the measured values. Stuff that was significantly further away was actually receding much faster than what Hubble's law predicted. Thus the old "linear" expansion theory had to be modified with the exponential dark energy theory about 10 or 11 years ago, to account for the discrepancy. Since the near data pretty much matches both the linear and the exponential theories, this is why it wasn't noticed before. It's only when you get out to really huge distances that the difference grows rapidly.

Alternatively, you might be thinking of the 'brane theory, which is a result of string theory explaining why the gravitational force is so weak (many orders of magnitude compared to the strong & weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic force). Because gravitons are the only force carriers that spread out through the extra dimensions of the universe (either 10 or 11 or 22 IIRC, according to quantum gravity), it is quite diluted in our 3 distance dimensions. So our 4 spacetime dimensions are like a thin membrane spread out over the other dimensions, and only gravity leaking out and permeating these extra dimensions. Thus even with dark energy causing spacetime within our universe to accelerate its expansion, gravity leaking via the other dimensions will eventually cause our membrane - or 'brane - to collide with another one releasing all that leaked gravitational potential energy and causing another big bang.
April 5, 2012 8:10:43 PM

wanamingo said:
Ive read the current theory is heat death, since the universe is actually expanding faster. Im more of a proponent of a multiverse theory or superstring.

How do you guys feel about heaven and hell?

I took some latin in HIgh school and I can say first hand what a pain that language is. Its very nuanced especially when tenses change depending on social status or the number of people you are talking too. This is what makes it so hard to translate and capture the original intention.

Can someone expand on these verses?

Deuteronomy 23:1
A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off must not be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.


Be aware that the Old and New testaments are different. Also, do not read line by line, but in the context of the whole message.

Read the line before: "Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." and it will provide additional context into what that statement means.

Now, remember, Jesus supposedly came to earth because the Church was wrong in its teachings. He was there to set things correct and fix them. So, taking the old stuff and having it be manipulated resulted in Jesus, God's Son and/or a prophet (since he could speak with God) to correct the Church on earth. That's why Jesus came to earth in a religious context. He came to fix the Church.

Jewish people for example don't see Jesus as the Son of God, but as someone who was teaching the correct way of the Jewish religion. He didn't do anything special, he was only doing what the real Church was supposed to do. Remember, Jews didn't kill Jesus. Roman Catholics killed Jesus.
April 5, 2012 8:19:27 PM

Fazers:

All good and all.. but again I defer that our technology and science is not accurate enough to truly understand this. It was only 3-4 years ago that I was learning of the penrose theory from the person who discovered it herself.
From my limited knowledge based on what she explained, they were able to determine that all stars were moving away from a central point. I recall covering the red shifts to determine the makeup of the planet and all that stuff. Even then, on a closer scale to our milky way and whatnot, planets are moving away from us, not towards us, giving credit to the concept of a central location where things started.

We will never know in our lifetime. But it was interesting to read on your information yet I do find that a bit harder to readily accept as a possibility. It seems something more out of Star Trek with the Universe is Moving, not the planets, etc. Extra dimensions... ehh.

Heck, we still can't figure out gravity, let alone something a billion light years away. But this is how discovery is made through observations, discussions, and the thought process. Much like how different branches and forms of government or religion start.
April 5, 2012 8:21:26 PM

Jesus was a Jew...In fact, he was a Rabbi!

There was severe corruption in the land that the religious leaders took the Law and twisted each and every one of them to manipulate, control, and steal from individuals.

Read up on Jesus in the Temple. Also, there is a chapter in the New Testament, ( one of the the First Four,) that Jesus says He is not to remove the Law, but to fulfill it...or something like that. Give me time to find it.
April 5, 2012 8:28:18 PM

A lot of people get confused by trying to imagine the expansion of the unverse. Often a cosmologist will trot out the "dots on a balloon" idea where you paint dots on a balloon and then watch them move away from each other as you inflate the balloon. But this doesn't really help with the concept of gravity wanting to move those dots closer together, etc.

So another analogy is to think of two boats on a pond. Without any disturbance such as wind or currents, they will just sit there motionless with respect to each other. Now throw in gravity, which is like an infinitely stretchable rubber band, connecting the two, except this is a special rubber band that gets twice as strong as it shrinks to half its length (i.e., the inverse square law attraction). So the boats will slowly start moving towards each other and accelerate the closer they get.

Now imagine an opening on the bottom of the pond where water wells up to the surface, tending to push the boats apart. Now imagine more such openings located every foot along the bottom. The further away the boats are, the greater the volume of water trying to push them apart. This is the analogy to the expansion of space (spacetime) that carries the boats within it. Even though the boats are fighting the current via the gravity rubber band, it is a losing battle because the increasing amount of water pushing them more rapidly apart as the distance between them grows. The more they are separated, the more openings dumping more water into the current pushing them apart.

Finally, to account for dark energy, imagine some nasty little gnome living in a cavern below the pond, turning up the water pressure on each opening and thus increasing the water flow from each one as time goes by. Hence the acceleration is accelerating..

Dunno about you guys, but this idea floats my boat more than dots on a balloon :D ..
April 5, 2012 8:46:23 PM

Right, but the expansion of space is a theory we're grasping onto without really anything readily known to cause it.

As for these 'wells' in space time, what/where are they and/or where is this coming from? I would imagine that at some point enough mass could eventually combine to cause gravity to win over this concept of space expansion.

If the universe has finite amount of mass in space, and all mass can be contained into a section of space.. the empty space outside of the contained mass.. is that expansion, space, existing, or what?

Imagine a water drop hitting the ground in an open area. It splashes out so far. That's the mass. The floor all around it is the space that no mass has entered. Is that still space? Or is that the expansion you refer to? Or are you referring to an entirely new concept that more space is being created within the contained space of mass?
April 5, 2012 8:54:57 PM

Ummm, if one were here on our planet, and all the other stars had gone out, we would never know, simply because the light from those long brunt out stars would still be heading for earth long after the stars death
April 5, 2012 8:57:54 PM

riser said:
Fazers:

All good and all.. but again I defer that our technology and science is not accurate enough to truly understand this. It was only 3-4 years ago that I was learning of the penrose theory from the person who discovered it herself.
From my limited knowledge based on what she explained, they were able to determine that all stars were moving away from a central point. I recall covering the red shifts to determine the makeup of the planet and all that stuff. Even then, on a closer scale to our milky way and whatnot, planets are moving away from us, not towards us, giving credit to the concept of a central location where things started.


I'm not disputing the big bang theory - the idea that the universe sort of erupted from a central location some 14 billion years ago. However if you read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" you'll note that the uncertainty principle also applies to the Big Bang, which is why we cannot penetrate further than about the time the universe was a basketball in size, or 10^-43 seconds old, take yer pick :D . Spacetime is too granular to go beyond that.

However I was also pointing out that scientists have known for a couple decades or so that there is far too little matter in the universe to cause it to recollapse in a "Big Crunch". By observing the motion of stars in a galaxy - their position & velocities - they can infer how much mass there is in that galaxy. Which is also how they came to figure out there was a ton of unseen matter out there. If you take a standard spiral galaxy, the stars should have velocities that drop the further from the center they are, exactly like how the planets in our solar system move more slowly the further out they are according to Newton's law. However observation shows that the stars all move at nearly the same velocity no matter their distance from the center. The only way to explain this would be if the mass of that galaxy was distributed throughout it instead of being concentrated at the center. It's as if the stars are like glowing spots on a large dark wheel of matter slowly rotating, instead of being in orbits around the center of the mass.

Even accounting for this dark matter, the universe suffers from a mass deficit similar to our national debt - ain't no way it's gonna contract back down to zero :p .

Quote:
We will never know in our lifetime. But it was interesting to read on your information yet I do find that a bit harder to readily accept as a possibility. It seems something more out of Star Trek with the Universe is Moving, not the planets, etc. Extra dimensions... ehh.


Read my post on the water welling up from the pond bottom analogy - I find it preferable to the balloon blowing up one. As for the extra dimensions, string theory ties my 'brane up in knots as well :p . But interesting none the less. IIRC some cosmologist once said string theory was a mathematical exercise in search of a theory :D .. They only invented it as a way to reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity (the macro-scale) to quantum theory (nano-scale), in the so-called Grand Unification Theory attempt.

Quote:
Heck, we still can't figure out gravity, let alone something a billion light years away. But this is how discovery is made through observations, discussions, and the thought process. Much like how different branches and forms of government or religion start.


Well these theories try to reconcile reproducible observations with the underlying causes. If they manage to make predictions that we can actually check (which pretty much eliminates string theory; hence the comment above), then so much the better. The inflationary theory was proposed by Alan Guth back in the '80s (?) to explain why the cosmic background radiation seems to be almost completely uniform no matter what direction we look. However if it were completely uniform, then matter would have been uniformly dispersed throughout the universe and no galaxies could have formed. So inflation basically takes quantum uncertainties many times smaller that an atom, in that primordial Big Bang basketball, and blows it up on a cosmic scale to the size of galactic clusters spanning billions of light years.

It's really a question on trying to fit all the pieces of evidence together in a cosmic crime scene, and thus reconstruct what happened. So it's CSI - Universe, I guess :D .
April 5, 2012 9:05:30 PM

So what's your saying with "CSI - Universe," is that if we go back through all the theories, it'll be the 3rd theory that is true? I mean, the first two just throw you off... but the 3rd person is generally the ticket. Or the third does an end around and leads back to the first.

Basically, we figured it out. We just don't know we did it yet. :D 
April 5, 2012 9:33:32 PM

"We have the answer, just no the question."

-anonymous
April 5, 2012 9:37:10 PM

riser said:
Right, but the expansion of space is a theory we're grasping onto without really anything readily known to cause it.


It would be spacetime momentum. Basically its the leftover force of the Big Bang explosion that spewed matter, energy and time and space into the undefined void surrrounding it. The inflationary epoch was just a glitch where some cosmic glitch temporarily sped up the movie by a huge factor. After it ended the expansion continued at its ordinary pace.

People tend to think of the universe as expanding into something - what, they're not sure of. However cosmologists argue there is nothing, no space, no time, no matter and no energy - outside our universe. So once the universe started expanding, there was nothing outside it to impede or slow it down.

Quote:
As for these 'wells' in space time, what/where are they and/or where is this coming from? I would imagine that at some point enough mass could eventually combine to cause gravity to win over this concept of space expansion.


Think of a bubble of air suddenly released in outer space. Internal pressure will drive the molecules apart. It will continue to expand forever as it does not have enough mass within it to cause it to collapse again. Remember that gravity varies as the inverse square of the distance between the masses. If the initial velocity is high enough, gravity will drop more rapidly than it can slow down the masses. IOW, the mass has achieved escape velocity.

Spacetime itself does not have mass, so its size is irrelevant. Perhaps the well analogy was flawed since water does have mass. I only brought it up to show how the expansion rate is greater the further apart the objects are, which is the gist of Hubble's law.

If you want to go back to the expanding balloon concept, then two dots on the surface that are relatively close together, won't show as much separation velocity as two dots that are spaced a wide distance apart. In the latter case, there is just more of the expanding balloon between the two of them, hence they separate at a faster speed than the closer dots. If the first two dots are one inch apart, and you blow the balloon up to twice its original size, the two dots are then two inches apart. However two dots that are two inches apart are now 4 inches apart - IOW they moved twice the distance relative to each other as the first two dots in the same amount of time. Therefore their relative velocity must necessarily have been twice the relative velocity of the first two dots.

This is why I don't like the balloon analogy - drives me dotty :D ..

Quote:
If the universe has finite amount of mass in space, and all mass can be contained into a section of space.. the empty space outside of the contained mass.. is that expansion, space, existing, or what?


Spacetime is defined by mass - without mass you would not have spacetime. While the actual mass & energy within the universe has spread out to a distance necessarily less or equal to the age of the universe (approx. 14 billion years) multiplied by the speed of light (no mass can travel at, or exceed, the speed of light, and light itself always travels at the speed of light), spacetime is not so limited, due to inflation. While I mentioned spacetime as expanding by a factor of 1 followed by a thousand zeroes previously, there are other estimates as low as 10^78. Which means that the known mass in the universe would occupy a very tiny portion of spacetime. I read somewhere that there are approximately 10^85 atoms in the universe, so think of the known universe as being about 10^7 atoms - about as much space as a mote of dust - compared to the cosmos extending some 14 billion light years. And that is the lowest estimate of the size of spacetime.

Quote:
Imagine a water drop hitting the ground in an open area. It splashes out so far. That's the mass. The floor all around it is the space that no mass has entered. Is that still space? Or is that the expansion you refer to? Or are you referring to an entirely new concept that more space is being created within the contained space of mass?


See, you're still thinking that the universe has to expand into something. Cosmologists argue there is no "floor" for the water drop to splash onto. It is certainly not "space" since space itself requires matter to be inside it. Without matter (or energy - according to Einstein's E = MC^2 the two are interchangeable), there is no "space".

I know - a hard concept to wrap one's mind around. Speaking of which, I'm off to wrap mine around a cold brewski :D  Cheers!
April 5, 2012 10:03:25 PM

riser said:
So what's your saying with "CSI - Universe," is that if we go back through all the theories, it'll be the 3rd theory that is true? I mean, the first two just throw you off... but the 3rd person is generally the ticket. Or the third does an end around and leads back to the first.

Basically, we figured it out. We just don't know we did it yet. :D 


OK, one last post before it's Miller time (not that I'd drink that stuff :p ). Science is generally refining existing theories to fit new data, as our instruments and observations improve. Of course the observations improve thanks to better theories as well - sort of a hand-to-hand assist I guess.

About the only theory that I know of that has pretty much withstood a hundred years of increasingly refined observations would be the special and general theories of relativity, by the incomparable Albert Einstein. This is why he is considered the quintessential theorist. While other theories such as the Newtonian laws of motion or theory of gravity stood up for several hundred years, back then observations were quite primitive (i.el, sitting under an apple tree waiting for a observational event to occur :D ) and improvements progressed at a snail's pace compared today. So my guess is that on an equal scale, Einstein's theories have stood up maybe 10 times longer than Newton's, and they are still confirmed today. About the only thing that could be on the horizon would be the GUT theory to harmonize quantum physics with relativity, and so far progress has been pretty slow. But any GUT would have to accomodate the predictions made by Einstein's theories exactly, since that is what the latest observations continue to prove.

So it's pretty rare that scientists toss out a theory completely and start over. The last such time I can think of was when the Copernicaen heliocentric theory replaced the Ptolemaic theory that the Earth was the center of the universe. Refined astronomical observations required Ptolemaic theory to add celestial spheres upon spheres to accomodate the retrograde behavior of the outer planets as they supposedly orbited the stationary Earth. Copernicus correctly theorized that the Earth and planets orbited the Sun, and so the outer planets appeared to stop and then move backwards for a bit in the night sky as the Earth caught up then passed them in relative orbital position around the sun.

Unless some new observations re-support an older or modified theory, there would be no reason to go back to them. Science is all about constructing a theory, making predictions from the theory, observing what actually happens, then modifying the theory to accomodate the predictions. So hopefully it is a process that gradually zeroes in on the truth, assuming there is one. Some theorists now theorize there is no possible accomodation between quantum mechanics and relativity. Basically they are saying there are two equally correct theories of the universe - one for the exceedingly small and the other for the enormously large. If that is true, most unsatisfactory since we all would like a nice, tidy fundamental truth about everything :D .
April 6, 2012 1:08:00 PM

Yawn, I'm sleepy. :) 
April 6, 2012 2:03:13 PM

wanamingo said:
Thats the thing that gets me is I dont think God meant literally if you get you nuts chopped off you cant get into heaven. So what exactly is he trying to say?

Or that if you don't stone adulterers or work on a Sunday its a sin.

The problem I have with Bible interpretations is Some people use it as justification for oppression. For example homosexuals. It does say in the bible something to the effect "A man laying with another man as he lays with a woman is a sin." But no one follows the other obscure rules. You think if this were passed down from God himself he would have expected all of the little rules to be followed. Not just the ones that are socially convenient.



I agree, it is extremely confusing.

We are told to take it literally. But there are real problems with that. Moses squeezed water from a rock we are told. Well, all that means is that he found a water source, or a well. He didn't actually get water from a rock. We are told Moses wandered the desert for 40 (4, zero) years when in fact he wandered for "forty" years. "Forty" just means many. Just like Ali Babba and his "forty"(many) thieves. We are told Jonah was swallowed by a whale. This is just a saying which means you've found something important. So Jonah wasn't swallowed, he just found something or was made aware of something really important.

Confusing to say the least.
!