Does it all matter or anti-matter. ah hahaha… me so funny.
That’s awesome. Read Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (link right below the article). That’ll blow your mind.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Does it all matter or anti-matter. ah hahaha… me so funny.[/quote]
I found that joke amusing in one of the infinite parallel universes.
Maybe I liked the joke because a Zebra told it to me telepathically while I was breaking Usain Bolt’s world record in the 100 meter sprint.
[quote]fireplug52 wrote:
Before the big bang there was no universe. [/quote]
Even if there was no universe before the big bang, how do we know that there was no universe before there was no universe?
[quote]fireplug52 wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I hate the big bang theory. It makes absolutely no fucking sense.
How so? Seems fairly logical to me.[/quote]
Ok, as said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang apparently. So, what is nothing? Then, supposedly, something appeared all of a sudden and started expanding. Hmmm… what?
Huh, who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? One idea being considered is that there was another universe before the Big Bang that condensed in onto itself into the singularity that gave rise to our Big Bang.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
fireplug52 wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I hate the big bang theory. It makes absolutely no fucking sense.
How so? Seems fairly logical to me.
Ok, as said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang apparently. So, what is nothing? Then, supposedly, something appeared all of a sudden and started expanding. Hmmm… what?[/quote]
Have you heard the theory of an electric universe? It addresses the big bang. If you have an hour to spare, this is a pretty fascinating video:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374
The website is here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/
[quote]Bergman wrote:
Huh, who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? One idea being considered is that there was another universe before the Big Bang that condensed in onto itself into the singularity that gave rise to our Big Bang.[/quote]
That’s what the most popular version of the big bang was. Plus, why did the first universe collapse upon itself? And wouldn’t this universe be the same one as the last on?
[quote]fireplug52 wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Well. Sort of. The universe started out with some amount of energy. Matter and energy are equivalent, so as the universe expanded from the singularity matter began to coalesce from the pure energy forms found at the beginning.
As the universe continued to expand the matter now formed began to diversify and represent the types and distribution that matter has today. Heavier elements were formed later as stars coalesced from the homogeneous gasses and whatnot leftover from the creation event.
This theory was not picked out of a hat. The current data was examined and from that it was extrapolated that the universe started that way. A major part of this evidence is that every galaxy is moving away from each other, suggesting at some point in the past being very, very close together.
Now, you might object by asking, “What caused the big bang in the first place?”. Well, science is concerned with describing the universe as it is. Before the big bang there was no universe. So, what came before is not within the purview of science.
That said, there is some evidence we can gather that might point to what happened before the big bang event, and if that comes to full understanding then we might be able to describe what came before. Hard to say. [/quote]
I remember reading somewhere that matter and anti-matter would cause an explosion if they were ever in contact. My question is: If one thing is either one or the other, where are the fireworks 
Not sure if that teacher I got that from though was batshit crazy also…
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Huh, who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? One idea being considered is that there was another universe before the Big Bang that condensed in onto itself into the singularity that gave rise to our Big Bang.
That’s what the most popular version of the big bang was. Plus, why did the first universe collapse upon itself? And wouldn’t this universe be the same one as the last on?[/quote]
Well, not necessarily. My understanding is that in situations of extreme gravity (as in teh infinite density of the big bang) the laws of physics break down. Gravity could repel, electricity and magnetism might not behave as we currently know them to behave, etc etc basically this gets everything turned on its head. It’s only because we know certain rules that seem to exist in the universe that we can take educated guesses as to what happened in the past. Get to a point where rules dont apply, and all guesses are off.
My understanding also is there there is no “reason” for why the universe behaves as it does (gravity, electro-magnetism, energy-matter, etc) and that it just seems that this is how it turned out in this particular universe, this particular time
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Alquemist wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
"Wait, It Gets Worse: The genetic chaos continues. The Endosymbiotic Theory says that the mitochondria in our bodies, without which we couldn’t live, let alone write snide humor articles, was at one point a separate organism that invaded our cells and set up camp. They formed a symbiotic relationship so beneficial that we’ve never booted them out.
Furthermore, large chunks of the human genome are thought to be ancient retroviruses that managed to transcribe themselves into our DNA and have spent the remainder of their days happily clambering up and down our nucleotides like the McDuck children on a mansion banister.
Basically your cells are millions of individual organisms, all huddled together in a you-shaped beehive. Now see how long you can go before wanting to shower."
Didn’t this theory originally come from Star Wars?
Nice to know scientists are hard at work watching movies to come up with their theories.
This all means lightsabers are ral and star wars actually exists somewhere in a galaxy far, far away (for real).
Hey, you can’t really disprove it though.
Right, just like the big-bang theory can’t be disproved either. May the force be with you!
[/quote]
Not to be the nerdy one here…but this theory holds a lot of water. Start with the mitochondria (by the way, for you plant folks out there, this is the same for chloroplasts). Mitochondria have their on genomes, which is unique among organelles (other than the nucleus of course). They also have a double membrane (two phospholipid bi-layers) again unique among organelles (other than nucleus). They also have their own ribosomes for translating RNA to protein.
Now, the ribosomes found in your cells (other than in the mitochondria) are 80 S sized ribos (s is a unit of size and density that is rather complicated to explain). The ribos in mitochondria though are 70 S, which is the same size as bacterial ribosomes. Futhermore, the DNA in mitochondria are so-called circular DNA, which is how bacterial, not eukaryotic (that’s you) DNA is arranged. So the theory is, mitochondria are actually bacteria that formed that happy little sharing relationship with eukaryotic (again, that’s you) cells and we all lived happily ever after.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Huh, who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? One idea being considered is that there was another universe before the Big Bang that condensed in onto itself into the singularity that gave rise to our Big Bang.
That’s what the most popular version of the big bang was. Plus, why did the first universe collapse upon itself? And wouldn’t this universe be the same one as the last on?
Well, not necessarily. My understanding is that in situations of extreme gravity (as in teh infinite density of the big bang) the laws of physics break down. Gravity could repel, electricity and magnetism might not behave as we currently know them to behave, etc etc basically this gets everything turned on its head. It’s only because we know certain rules that seem to exist in the universe that we can take educated guesses as to what happened in the past. Get to a point where rules dont apply, and all guesses are off.
My understanding also is there there is no “reason” for why the universe behaves as it does (gravity, electro-magnetism, energy-matter, etc) and that it just seems that this is how it turned out in this particular universe, this particular time[/quote]
Honestly, I do agree with you one hundred percent. I really don’t think that the laws of physics apply all the time as we don’t know if they are even “laws”.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Didn’t this theory originally come from Star Wars?[/quote]
No.
It’s the other way around.
Mi-to-chon-dri-on + Chlo-ro-plast = “Me-ta-chlor-ion”
It was one of the stupidest parts of the Star Wars prequels, which is saying a lot as the whole damn pre-trilogy was retarded in most respects from beginning to end.
ElbowStrike
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
Honestly, I do agree with you one hundred percent. I really don’t think that the laws of physics apply all the time as we don’t know if they are even “laws”.[/quote]
We have to distinguish between the actual “laws” of physics, and our models that describe them.
When physicists say the “the laws of physics break down” what they actually mean is that “our current models cannot be used to model that particular situation”… most equations go to shit when you start plugging infinite values (or zeroes) into them.
Of course, it is much more likely that our current models are defective and incomplete; not that the universe is defective. Science is entirely built on the notion that the mechanisms of the physical world are not built (entirely) on randomness… even those that are (such as most of the quantum phenomena, where cause and effect blur and where it is impossible to make 100% accurate measurements, we can still use statistical means to predict the average outcome).
Those imperfect models are one reason String Theory was so hot in the 80’s and 90’s… it didn’t break down at singularities (Big Bang, black holes, etc), and it also did away with all the “fine tuning” of the physical constants. String Theory was often called “elegant” because it only had one constant: The tension of the string. (The “strings” of String Theory replace point particles with small loops of string).
String Theory also provided possibles explanations for the cause of the Big Bang (branes colliding in some sort of "brane multiverse… won’t get into that here.)
The main problem with String Theory is that no one knows if it’s just a nice mathematical construct or if it really can be used to model our universe. It is still an incomplete theory (used to be 5 competing theories, but Edward Witten showed them to be all variations of the same one in 1995 - probably the “peak” year for ST) and lately it’s become stuck in what has been termed “the landscape.” If I understand that part correctly, it seems that ST could describe 10^500 (10 followed by 500 zeroes) different universes, all with self-consistent laws… the main problem is that there is apparently no way to know which of those 10^500 “solutions” represents our universe. Bummer.
As for the “classical” Big Bang theory, you cannot ask what was before, since the theory has space and time beginning at the Big Bang. With no time before the Big Bang, there can’t be a “before” (the common image given is that you can’t ask what’s north of the North Pole). But again, that’s what the model “claims”… how much of reality it actually models correctly is difficult to determine.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Honestly, I do agree with you one hundred percent. I really don’t think that the laws of physics apply all the time as we don’t know if they are even “laws”.
We have to distinguish between the actual “laws” of physics, and our models that describe them.
When physicists say the “the laws of physics break down” what they actually mean is that “our current models cannot be used to model that particular situation”… most equations go to shit when you start plugging infinite values (or zeroes) into them.
Of course, it is much more likely that our current models are defective and incomplete; not that the universe is defective. Science is entirely built on the notion that the mechanisms of the physical world are not built (entirely) on randomness… even those that are (such as most of the quantum phenomena, where cause and effect blur and where it is impossible to make 100% accurate measurements, we can still use statistical means to predict the average outcome).
Those imperfect models are one reason String Theory was so hot in the 80’s and 90’s… it didn’t break down at singularities (Big Bang, black holes, etc), and it also did away with all the “fine tuning” of the physical constants. String Theory was often called “elegant” because it only had one constant: The tension of the string. (The “strings” of String Theory replace point particles with small loops of string).
String Theory also provided possibles explanations for the cause of the Big Bang (branes colliding in some sort of "brane multiverse… won’t get into that here.)
The main problem with String Theory is that no one knows if it’s just a nice mathematical construct or if it really can be used to model our universe. It is still an incomplete theory (used to be 5 competing theories, but Edward Witten showed them to be all variations of the same one in 1995 - probably the “peak” year for ST) and lately it’s become stuck in what has been termed “the landscape.” If I understand that part correctly, it seems that ST could describe 10^500 (10 followed by 500 zeroes) different universes, all with self-consistent laws… the main problem is that there is apparently no way to know which of those 10^500 “solutions” represents our universe. Bummer.
As for the “classical” Big Bang theory, you cannot ask what was before, since the theory has space and time beginning at the Big Bang. With no time before the Big Bang, there can’t be a “before” (the common image given is that you can’t ask what’s north of the North Pole). But again, that’s what the model “claims”… how much of reality it actually models correctly is difficult to determine.
[/quote]
I remember watching a movie about the string theory. And that’s what I meant about OUR laws of physics.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
I remember watching a movie about the string theory. And that’s what I meant about OUR laws of physics.[/quote]
Just so I’m getting this clearly: You believe that the actual physical laws (not our models of them, but the real deal) don’t apply everywhere, all the time?
If that is the case, any particular basis for that?
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
Bergman wrote:
Huh, who said there was nothing before the Big Bang? One idea being considered is that there was another universe before the Big Bang that condensed in onto itself into the singularity that gave rise to our Big Bang.
That’s what the most popular version of the big bang was. Plus, why did the first universe collapse upon itself? And wouldn’t this universe be the same one as the last on?[/quote]
And where did the first universe come from? Let’s make up a theory for that as well.
Maybe the force and Luke Skywalker created the first universe. That’s it, now I remember.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I remember watching a movie about the string theory. And that’s what I meant about OUR laws of physics.
Just so I’m getting this clearly: You believe that the actual physical laws (not our models of them, but the real deal) don’t apply everywhere, all the time?
If that is the case, any particular basis for that?
[/quote]
Yeah, that is what I am saying.
Every other time we had a set list of the laws of physics, something made us rethink it. Anyways, there as just observations that we have seen in our little area of the universe. Now, what’s to say that somewhere else, these aren’t laws, but just general guidelines. We discovered black holes, but our physics can’t really explain them (String Theory also right here). Anyways, I haven’t seen any proof that our laws apply 100% of the time.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
pookie wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
I remember watching a movie about the string theory. And that’s what I meant about OUR laws of physics.
Just so I’m getting this clearly: You believe that the actual physical laws (not our models of them, but the real deal) don’t apply everywhere, all the time?
If that is the case, any particular basis for that?
Yeah, that is what I am saying.
Every other time we had a set list of the laws of physics, something made us rethink it. Anyways, there as just observations that we have seen in our little area of the universe. Now, what’s to say that somewhere else, these aren’t laws, but just general guidelines.
We discovered black holes, but our physics can’t really explain them (String Theory also right here). Anyways, I haven’t seen any proof that our laws apply 100% of the time.[/quote]
And isn’t it interesting how black holes and other phenomenon that contradict the current laws of physics don’t changes the “laws” and they are still seen by many as universal and applicable to everything and everywhere despite the contradictions.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
Yeah, that is what I am saying.
Every other time we had a set list of the laws of physics, something made us rethink it. Anyways, there as just observations that we have seen in our little area of the universe. Now, what’s to say that somewhere else, these aren’t laws, but just general guidelines. We discovered black holes, but our physics can’t really explain them (String Theory also right here). Anyways, I haven’t seen any proof that our laws apply 100% of the time.[/quote]
Well that’s what I meant when I said that we must distinguish our models (like Newton’s Law of Gravity, Einstein’s Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, etc) from the actual physical laws (what really happens in the universe). We don’t know what those laws are, but through observation and experiments, we have managed to build theories that explain pretty accurately 95%+ of known phenomena.
The fact that our models break down with in various extreme scenarios indicates, I believe, that we still have much to learn about the universe. I do not believe, though, that the actual physical laws that govern the universe are randomly suspended at various times and/or conditions. In other words, our “laws” are incomplete; the universe’s laws, presumably, aren’t.