kaneda

Janus. It took me a while to get to using centigrade though I still see some scientists using fahrenheit. Degrees absolute never really seemed to catch on (or at least as far as I've noticed). Admittedly metric does make it easier to work things out in your head though calculators bypass that. swansont. How do you bend what is just a vacuum and nothing more? When I say space has structure, I mean it is not a vacuum but some kind of material that allows light to travel through it as waves. If on our scale we register it as basically being "nothing" then whatever it is, it is beyond our comprehension.

We are told that superstrings exist and lots of scientists work in that field. we are told that they have eleven dimensions. Proof that more than three dimensions exist is......? These are supposedly serious scientists and yet they cannot give any evidence to support what is just a belief. Evidence that superstrings exist is......? Actually a lot of people left the field about five years ago because they saw it as a scientific dead end, but the others still continue. 74% of the universe is dark energy. Or so the scientific establishment would have us believe. Evidence for DE is......sadly missing. Not a shred of evidence. Why do certain people here ask me for evidence when with the right people, they are willing to believe such unsupported statements?

iNow. Better not let Martin catch you making empty statements like that without proof to back up what you say. I wonder why Martin uses a picture of a 17th century idiot as an avatar?

The big bang idea has the CMB and red shift. With creationist zeal, we have been told by infallible people that there is not the slightest chance that these can have any explanation other than what is needed of them. The BB idea has many things wrong with it which is why it needs regular injections of fudge to keep it going and stop people finding what utter rubbish it is. Martin. This is a science forum and not a science lecture hall. Serious scientists like Stephen Hawking would not be caught dead posting here. If I had a new theory, I would not be here but instead looking for a Nobel prize or whatever. Your idea of being a Physics Expert seems to be to quote what anyone can find for themselves in a science text book or on a science site, which means you are redundant here except to people who are too lazy to check the official version for themselves. I have asked where all the new space is coming from, and evidence for a four physical dimension hypersphere which is needed for the current model of expansion. Why have you not asked these questions instead of blandly accepting whatever you are told? I don't know if it is zero but I see problems with expansion. Space IS a material. You talk as though it were just an empty vacuum and nothing else. Explain how space can be bent by a gravitational source if it is just a vacuum as you claim. How do we know that gravity is the same at any distance, anywhere in the universe. Take a star of several solar masses which becomes a black hole and recently we found one which had a stable orbit just one hundred miles from the event horizon (in other words, near where the centre of the core of the star would normally be for such a mass). Gravity moves at light speed. How can it affect something moving FTL? Such a thing would be free of all gravity in the universe. We have no evidence on earth of FTL speeds and only in very distant space, an illusion caused by what is very poorly seen and even more poorly understood. Like god, if you want to propose the impossible, you need evidence and not just some crazy ideas based on faulty evidence with a few names of people you believe infallible to back it up. You behave like a creationist, believing your text book right from the first word to the last. You have answered ZERO of the questions I asked you and just fall back on an "I'm right, you're wrong" stance. Expert? Hahahahaha!

I tend to think of strings as bends in space. The problem I have with them is their size; that they are too small to affect or make anything on any scale we know. Now if they were 10-100 times smaller than an electron, they could maybe work together somehow to form all atomic particles and forces.

Bodies in higher gravity areas naturally move slower, even on a molecular scale. That is called time dilation by the unthinking.

Time is a man made measure to help us cope with the world around us. It is said that heavier gravity causes time dilation. Duh. Gravity literally slows down the components of an atom so it moves slower. The same with cooling an atom down.

Heavy elements are created in super-novae. The big bang is essentially the grand-daddy of all super-novae so should have created massive amounts of heavy elements rather than mostly hydrogen and helium.

Martin. Sorry for claiming that you are not all knowing. The big bang is a crackpot idea for many reasons which you do not seem to know. Expansion relies on a four physical dimensional hypersphere. Perhaps you would like to explain how that is possible? Things moving faster than light is impossible. As EMR, gravity, etc are limited to light speed, this suggests that space itself is the limiting factor and cannot go beyond light speed either. Some claim that it works by separate areas expanding so totalling FTL but you then have to explain where all the new space comes from which has not been done. I have raised some of these points elsewhere but you apparently expect them raised again and again, every time I make a statement. You're just another text book quoter. Big deal.

Earth varies it's distance around the Moon by 27,000 miles, averaging 238,000 miles away. Essentially the Moon orbits the Sun but is pulled into a further orbit by the Earth.

Dark matter is described as being either as light as neutrinos or fifty times as heavy as protons. It is said to be 9000.C but radiates no heat. It moves at a constant speed and cannot form small structures but can form very large structures. It is only affected gravitationally and some say most of it is in the galactic halo so why with six times as much matter in the halo as light matter in the rest of the galaxy do galaxies not look like ring doughnuts, with hollow centres? If large structures of DM exist, then moons, planets, stars, neutron stars, black holes would swallow them as they orbit the galaxy and move about within it. Neutron stars and black holes would literally hoover up these large structures leaving almost none left after billions of years. DM should be in moons and every thing larger as well as in the space around us but no evidence. We are told that a small blob in a photo where a solar system sized black hole would be the size of an atom on that scale is proof of DM. We also see computer simulations of DM where unexplained spaces MUST of course be DM. Can it get any worse? agentchange. Amazing. The article shows the structure of the universe is anything but smooth. I find it difficult to believe that another area could drag everything from that area as claimed a possibility.

This assumes that there was a big bang. There are many problems with the big bang idea, which have been filled in with fudges. Even some professional astronomers doubt the BB happened (27 wrote an open letter to New scientist some years back detailing some of the problems with it and why they did not believe in it).

swansont. Light travels in a straight line unless something causes it to change direction. It can only do that in space if space is bent/curved. agentchange. 175 miles per second. I didn't go to school within the last decade or so, so normally don't talk metric. I checked up and see from the figure I originally had, estimates have changed from 225 to 250,000,000 years for one orbit with correspondingly different speeds. Though these change the figures in my original post, they do not change the basic premise that Earth travels in an almost straight line for a century at a time so hardly a sharp curve which would throw it out of the galaxy.

According to legend, the expansion of the universe is accelerating meaning that it will not rebound but expand forever. Unless the universe has a finite ability to expand so will literally rebound into a big crunch. I hate the word "infinite". After an infinite time, all material in the universe will have undergone heat death or formed just one big black hole which according to legend will have evaporated. All particles will have exceeded their 10^30+ years life span and so ceased to exist. After infinite time, nothing!

agentchange. If all the matter in the universe were in a ball, whether a molecule or a light year across, then it would stay like that forever. A singularity or black hole, whatever you want to call it. Big bangs do not happen for that reason. I don't like the use of the word "infinite" so definitely a finite universe.