"Gaping hole found in universe
Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:31PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A giant hole in the Universe is devoid of galaxies, stars and even lacks dark matter, astronomers said on Thursday.
The team at the University of Minnesota said the void is nearly a billion light-years across and they have no idea why it is there.
“Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size,” said astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick.
Writing in the Astrophysical Journal, Rudnick and colleagues Shea Brown and Liliya Williams said they were examining a cold spot using the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, and found the giant hole.
“We already knew there was something different about this spot in the sky,” Rudnick said. The region stood out as being colder in a survey of the Cosmic Microwave Background – the faint radio buzz left over from the Big Bang that gave birth to the Universe.
“What we’ve found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the Universe,” Williams said in a statement.
The astronomers said the region even appeared to lack dark matter, which cannot be seen directly but is usually detected by measuring gravitational forces.
The void is in a region of sky in the constellation Eridanus, southwest of Orion."
Or it could be proof that the “donut” model of universe expansion was correct all this time, long after it had been shot down because of the evidence we had.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The team at the University of Minnesota said the void is nearly a billion light-years across and they have no idea why it is there.
[/quote]
LOL! They have no idea where astrological formations came from in the first place, and it’s now a surprise to them that their made up model of how the earth and surrounding solar systems originated is flawed? Too funny!
Big bang! Right! And just where did this matter come from that suddenly blew up randomly? Unbelievable!
Observational studies? I want to meet that guy who was here to observe the universe being formed.
Maybe what is not “normal” is there evolutionary model? No, of course not, that would be too scientific to re-evaluative your theory in light of new conflicting evidence!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Maybe what is not “normal” is there evolutionary model? No, of course not, that would be too scientific to re-evaluative your theory in light of new conflicting evidence!
[/quote]
Ummm… I’m pretty sure the point of this information is that now they have to re-evaluate their theory. Seems unlikely that they wouldn’t change the models.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Maybe what is not “normal” is there evolutionary model? No, of course not, that would be too scientific to re-evaluative your theory in light of new conflicting evidence!
Ummm… I’m pretty sure the point of this information is that now they have to re-evaluate their theory. Seems unlikely that they wouldn’t change the models.[/quote]
I hope you are right. So I will admit I was wrong when/if they do re-evaluate the model and come out with some other theory other than big bang.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I hope you are right. So I will admit I was wrong when/if they do re-evaluate the model and come out with some other theory other than big bang.[/quote]
Well, it isn’t necessary to throw out the big bang as of yet, at least not if they can’t find some theory to explain this type of behavior within that theory.
Geez, be patient would you, the scientists will need time under the thinking tree to come up with some ideas.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I hope you are right. So I will admit I was wrong when/if they do re-evaluate the model and come out with some other theory other than big bang.
Well, it isn’t necessary to throw out the big bang as of yet, at least not if they can’t find some theory to explain this type of behavior within that theory.
Geez, be patient would you, the scientists will need time under the thinking tree to come up with some ideas.[/quote]
Since we are dealing with theories, it won’t be long before all sorts of new theories explaining ties between this newly discovered instance and existing theories will be made up. They will also remain theories and will be taught repeatedly until they are thought of more as fact than theory.
I hope you are right. So I will admit I was wrong when/if they do re-evaluate the model and come out with some other theory other than big bang.[/quote]
This doesn’t invalidate the big bang theory, take off the religious blinders.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Since we are dealing with theories, it won’t be long before all sorts of new theories explaining ties between this newly discovered instance and existing theories will be made up. They will also remain theories and will be taught repeatedly until they are thought of more as fact than theory. [/quote]
LOL.
Dude, until a better theory comes along or some evidence pops up to make the theory seem incorrect. There’s no conspiracy or brainwashing or anything like that.
When a “long” period of time goes past without a conflict arising, theories can get generally accepted, but then, once in a while, some zinger evidence pops up to challenge things.
The alternative is to believe things “just because” without requiring any ability to test those ideas.
