Scientists say...

[anotherneil]

I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:

No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"
Another example of bad science presentation in the news.

Note I only watched the first 30 seconds but I am not a fan of this guy but fairly sure that is the story.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:

No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"
Another example of bad science presentation in the news.

Note I only watched the first 30 seconds but I am not a fan of this guy but fairly sure that is the story.

 

[anotherneil]

No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"
Another example of bad science presentation in the news.

Note I only watched the first 30 seconds but I am not a fan of this guy but fairly sure that is the story.

I don't follow Kaku's work that much, and I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Can you post something that provides more about it?

 

[anotherneil]

Same with this one - I wonder if things would add up to explain this if she used the premise that there is no start to the universe:

 

[Pogo]

Same with this one - I wonder if things would add up to explain this if she used the premise that there is no start to the universe:

She is much better than Michio but presents for a more knowledgeable audience.
As for no start, I'm not sure what you mean but this seems to all be based on data and models of the post singularity universe and what led to the singularity should not actually matter.
As for the other video, I will watch it later, apparently it is a more recent surprise that I am not familiar with.

 

[anotherneil]

She is much better than Michio but presents for a more knowledgeable audience.
As for no start, I'm not sure what you mean but this seems to all be based on data and models of the post singularity universe and what led to the singularity should not actually matter.
As for the other video, I will watch it later, apparently it is a more recent surprise that I am not familiar with.

If I understand correctly, I think what she's saying is that something is making it appear as though we're at the exact center of the known universe, which is a coincidence with mathematically impossible odd, meaning that this is an incorrect assessment to make about the universe.

In the other video, it shows Kaku stating that observations of some newly discovered galaxies that were made with the James Webb space telescope disprove some notions that we have about the universe (in terms of its age) & he gets into a little bit of detail about that.

What I mean by no start - and this is my own personal opinion - is that there was no beginning to the universe; I think that the universe has always existed, which is probably a concept that some might find challenging to grasp. I also think that there is probably no boundary to the universe (there is for the "known" universe), either, and that's also something some might find challenging to grasp; however, I don't have any issues with the possibility that the universe is actually something like the hypothetical toroidal model (i.e., the "donut theory"). I don't need anyone to agree or accept my position - to reiterate, it's just my own personal opinion.

The observations discussed in these 2 videos seem to suggest that my own personal opinion is not inconsistent with them.

 

[metis]

I think that the universe has always existed, which is probably a concept that some might find challenging to grasp.

That's the "Steady State Theory", which has been disproven.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the "Steady State Theory", which has been disproven.

Disproven as per theoretical physical or through actual observation?

 

[metis]

Disproven as per theoretical physical or through actual observation?

The latter.

 

[anotherneil]

That's the "Steady State Theory", which has been disproven.

From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.

 

[metis]

From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.

The SST posits that the universe was always roughly the same size, which is counter to the Big Bang Theory.

 

[anotherneil]

The SST posits that the universe was always roughly the same size, which is counter to the Big Bang Theory.

Show me a source that says this, and show me a source that this has been disproven.

EDIT: Actually, it doesn't matter; I think neither the SST nor the Big Bang Theory are correct/good/plausible theories.

 

[RestlessSoul]

From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.

The SST posits that the universe was always roughly the same size, which is counter to the Big Bang Theory.

It’s fair to say both right, potentially. The Steady State and Big Bang theories evolved together, and for a time both had their adherents. When the first piece of empirical evidence in support of the BB - the redshifting of distant galaxies - was observed by Edwin Hubble, efforts were made to rescue the SST. Albert Einstein, who’s own equations led back to the singularity associated with the BB, was himself involved in the doomed attempt to revive SST.

Further extremely valuable and convincing evidence for the BB came with the discover of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The Big Bang became the Standard Model, and the steady state went in the bin.

This does not resolve the issue of whether the universe actually had a beginning, or what if anything might have preceded it. Part of the issue here is, What do we mean by The Universe? Most astronomers are referring to the observable universe when using the term; philosophers and some cosmologists use the term Universe to mean the totality of everything, not ruling out the probability of other universes, past present and future, and some infinite and eternal universe in which our own may exist as a transient pocket or bubble.

 

[anotherneil]

It’s fair to say both right, potentially. The Steady State and Big Bang theories evolved together, and for a time both had their adherents. When the first piece of empirical evidence in support of the BB - the redshifting of distant galaxies - was observed by Edwin Hubble, efforts were made to rescue the SST. Albert Einstein, who’s own equations led back to the singularity associated with the BB, was himself involved in the doomed attempt to revive SST.

Further extremely valuable and convincing evidence for the BB came with the discover of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The Big Bang became the Standard Model, and the steady state went in the bin.

This does not resolve the issue of whether the universe actually had a beginning, or what if anything might have preceded it. Part of the issue here is, What do we mean by The Universe? Most astronomers are referring to the observable universe when using the term; philosophers and some cosmologists use the term Universe to mean the totality of everything, not ruling out the probability of other universes, past present and future, and some infinite and eternal universe in which our own may exist as a transient pocket or bubble.

The notion of more than one universe simply sounds like a contradiction. It's like saying a 1 that is greater than 1.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The notion of more than one universe simply sounds like a contradiction. It's like saying a 1 that is greater than 1.

No, it is different defintions of what the universe is.
But I have never seen any evidence for what the universe is. Only different defintions.

 

[anotherneil]

No, it is different defintions of what the universe is.
But I have never seen any evidence for what the universe is. Only different defintions.

I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.

2. I said that 2 is a part of uni- as 1. Nopw I am not in the uinverse as 1 and thus I am not really written this. It means that you are not even reading this.

You are a rationalist and I am not as 1, since I am a skeptic. Learn to doubt your own thinking.
And learn that words function in 3 different aspects and you are conflating 2 of them.

 

[Pogo]

I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.

Can you say gay?
Word meanings change and vary with context. Universe was just the word coined to mean all that there is, it has expanded and since multiverse has been hypothesized, it now can be one of a set of universes.

 

[anotherneil]

I am looking for someone who is willing to agree that 1 + 1 = 20.

If I ever do find such an individual, I want to offer them a deal & the deal is this: I'll trade them $1 + $1 for $20, and as an incentive, I'll give them another $1, which - according to their math - would be a good deal for them.