/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope

How is the expansion of space creation of matter or energy? I missed something here.

>>2446584
there's gotta be something that fills the space due to the expansion. most scientists say it's dark "matter".

then who was energy

>>2446599
>there's gotta be something that fills the space due to the expansion.
Why?

>>2446599
>most scientists say
source?
I'm not skeptical just interested.

>>2446609
because none of us can picture or imagine what 'nothing' looks like. something has to fill up. it's like blowing up a balloon.

Isn't that why they came up with dark energy?

>>2446612
watching monster of the milky way on national geographic right now

>>2446633
i just don't understand what happens after that dark energy has been transformed into the expansion of the universe. if there are shit loads of black holes in the universe, shouldn't it collapse rather than expanding at an exponential rate? how can something expand and collapse internally with nothing in between?

>>2446620
The universe doesn't care about making intuitive sense to you. Stop making assumptions on how it should work based on convenience.

The cause for the accelerated expansion of space is called dark energy. What is dark energy? We don't know yet. Stick around for a couple of years and we might find out.

it's expanding slower than it was.

once enough energy converts to mass the universe will stop expanding and start contracting again

>>2446620
So, because it violates your intuition, not because it violates evidence? Nice science there kid. (/sarcasm)

Think of black holes as cancer in our organism.

>>2446674

This is Wrong - The Universe will never stop expanding.

>>2446674
That's been outdated for quite some time now.

I watched a documentary once but it might be old by now. Is it still true, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are things made up so scientists can still claim there is no god?

>>2446715
>mfw

>>2446715
No. Never has been. Same for the fictional aether as well. God entirely unrelated.

>>2446599
>there's gotta be something that fills the space due to the expansion
nope

>most scientists say it's dark "matter"
nope

>>2446674
so like the big bang except it's backwards so it's the bang big?

>>2446704
>>2446691

y'all just don't know

does a ball rise forever?

no; eventually the energy with which it was throw is overwhelmed by the gravity and distance from the source

ie. energy and mass are interchangeable

and once enough energy is converted, it produces a cumulative effect; the more mass the more gravity;

eventually it will all collapse into a single point and explode again

time and life are cyclical

>>2446739

Hes trying to point to the big bounce a theory that is known to be incorrect.
Pic related

That's not what the evidence says. The evidence clearly disagrees with you. And the evidence is always right (though perhaps not our interpretation thereof).

>>2446764
Err,
>That's not what the evidence says. The evidence clearly disagrees with you. And the evidence is always right (though perhaps not our interpretation thereof).

was in reply to:
>>2446755

>>2446776
Nothing agrees with him, hes just trolling.

>>2446739

yah man the big bang leads to the big crunch

>>2446755

Sauce please - or stfu. I know you think this way because this is what has been "observed" but its incorrect. Nowadays cosmologists and astronomers alike all say the universe started at one focal point and will continue to expand in a cone like shape forever.

>>2446784
>>2446776

not trolling; just pointing out basic common sense

life and time are cyclical

spring summer fall winter spring

day night day night

you're born to die

the universe expands to contract to expand again

>>2446794

all they see is what's behind them; they don't see the future because it hasn't happened yet

we're not yet at the point of reflex

science only knows what has happened; it lacks the ability to transcend

retrospection

>>2446760
>that is known to be incorrect.

Could you elaborate on this please?

>>2446755

There is not enough mass-energy in the universe for it to collapse.

The universe is mathematically flat. In such a model it cannot contract. It will expand, slowing down forerver but never reaching zero like a log curve.

>>2446795

Wow - Are you fucking dense dude? That theory is incorrect. Stop promoting your nonsense.

>>2446795

Holy fuck you really are one of those New Age nuts. Can we keep you under observation?

>>2446807

>Thank you!

Pic related

>>2446795
>not trolling; just pointing out basic common sense

As clearly shown time and time again, the universe doesn't obey common sense. If the evidence contradicts your common sense, then the evidence is right, and your common sense is wrong.

>>2446805

What do you want to know about it specifically?

>>2446755
>does a ball rise forever? no
So far so good.

>eventually the energy with which it was throw is overwhelmed by the gravity
An odd way of putting it, but sure.

>and distance from the source
Uh, youre impling that the simple fact that it move away from you arm, "the source" of the energy, it lost energy, which is completely wrong. .

>ie. energy and mass are interchangeable
Matter and energy are not interchangable. Theres a certain amount of equivalence, yes. Also, this does not flow from what you just said.

>and once enough energy is converted, it produces a cumulative effect; the more mass the more gravity;
Completly wrong, the ball loses its energy as it climbs and has (very very) slightly less mass. In addition, the earth exerts (very very) slightly less force on the object. But the effect is almost completely negligible.

>eventually it will all collapse into a single point and explode again
uh.....

>time and life are cyclical
......

>>2446808
>>2446812
How is he wrong?

The universe expands, contracts into a singularity, then there's another big bang and it expands again.

lrn2bigbangtheory

>>2446795
Common sense usually lacks the scientific initiative.
Provide evidence.

>>2446841
That's not big bang theory. You go learn it.

for fuck sake sci you are stupid

>>2446818
>>2446816
>>2446812
>>2446808
>>2446807


empirics only knows what it's seen

since the big bang followed an event horizon, science by its own admission can't see beyond it; so it surmises a beginning at that point; lulz

it's patent nonsense

life is like a fractal; every level displays the same pattern;

day, month, year; all cyclical; your life, cyclical

ice ages, cyclical

and you think it's a big jump to say time itself, the universe itself is cyclical?

y'all retarded


Colonel, as energy expends itself, it creates mass which effects gravity; the more gravity, the slower the expansion

eventually there will be a turning point and the energy, like the tide or the light at solstice, will begin to recede

science is constrained by its tools

>>2446755

>time and life are cyclical
>mfw

>>2446852
>since the big bang followed an event horizon, science by its own admission can't see beyond it; so it surmises a beginning at that point; lulz

Science does not say that. That's a common misrepresentation which continues to be perpetuated. Please stop perpetuating this flagrant misrepresentation of modern science.

>>2446847
Yes it is, you go learn it.

>>2446852

I love how you just turned science into theology.... How do you sleep at night?

>>2446852

Your mom is cyclical.

>>2446828

An odd way of putting it, but sure.

>and distance from the source
Uh, youre impling that the simple fact that it move away from you arm, "the source" of the energy, it lost energy, which is completely wrong. .

think of the source as the big bang

lrn2inverse square law

>Matter and energy are not interchangable. Theres a certain amount of equivalence, yes. Also, this does not flow from what you just said.

lrn2E=mc^2

notice energy and mass are on opposite sides of the equation

>>2446859
http://space.mit.edu/~kcooksey/teaching/AY5/MisconceptionsabouttheBigBang_ScientificAmerican.pdf

>>2446845

luckily there is more to life than "scientific initiative" lulz

>>2446871
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

>>2446857

science says teh universe constricted to a single point

beyond which we can't see

do you not understand what an event horizon is?

>>2446859

Scientist posted the MIT link but...
one more link so you have an appreciation for time... It'll discuss your misconception and educate you further.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html

>>2446890
>science says teh universe constricted to a single point
>beyond which we can't see
No it doesn't.

>do you not understand what an event horizon is?
Yes, though obviously you don't.

>>2446863

theology?

try again

funny tho that science can't handle an argument and resorts to non sequiters and ad homs

>>2446715
I just pood a little blood

>>2446899

your argument boils down to "nuh uh"

>>2446913
No. It boils down to you're a troll, and if you weren't you would have bothered to read the link from the MIT website.

>>2446871
>herp if i can find it in a link it must be true

boards dot 4chan dot org/sci/res/2446568#2446841

MASTER TIER TROLL, ABANDON THREAD

>>2446920

not a troll, but if that makes your defence of your own position easier, then go ahead

as for the MIT link, I'm reading it now, but this is a debate, can't you articulate your own position?


or is your position: science is right because some scientists said so?

>>2446913

You can fast forward like 6 minutes into sean carrolls lecture and learn something kiddo - stop perpetuating bullshit its not very scientific.

>>2446920
>call someone a troll
>claim victory

cool story bro

>>2446925

hahaahah so true.

>>2446931
My position has always been that the big bang theory does not say that the universe was once the size of a single point mass.

Why is this true? Because all scientists say so. This is after all a question of what scientists say.

>>2446936

Again, as with my reply to scientist, why can't you articulate your own position?

it's not a debate to resort to some long ass presentation kiddo

>>2446952
>appeal to authority

>>2446955
But I have, numerous times, else-thread. There's nothing more to articulate besides saying you're wrong, and providing links showing that you're wrong.

>>2446952

ok, i will amend my argument;

your argument is because other scientists said so it must be true; can't you defend your own shit?

argument by authority is the same logic christians use

y'all can't think for yourselves?

now i'm watching 'death of the universe' on nat geo

they are listing the ways how universe can 'die'

1. the big crunch (as the previous cyclic anon explained)
2. the big chill (all available energy is used up and the universe turns "cold")
3. the burst (universe expanding at a rate so fast that space and time cannot hold the fabric together, shredding everything down to its last atom)

>>2446964
You need to learn your fallacies. It is a fallacy to appeal to authority when discussing unrelated matters.

However, if the discussion at hand is "Did X say Y?", then the only evidence is to look at X and see if he said Y. The discussion is "Does Big Bang Theory say X?". Big bang theory is exactly and only what scientists say it is, which means the final authority is the statements of scientists.

This is different than saying Big Bang Theory is true because scientists say so. That's examining the veracity of Big Bang Theory instead of its literal text.

>>2446913
Yours boils down to "I'm fucking stupid and can't admit I' wrong"

Kindly go fuck yourself.

think of the universe as spreading butter over and infinitely large sheet of paper, not like "blowing up a balloon"

>>2446970
Simply responding with links is a pretty immature and cheap strategy in a debate. It leaves the other person with the options to either point out your bullshit strategy, or to engage in a link fight with you.

here's my appeal to authority

god told me y'all retarded fags

see >>2446811

>>2446978

You expect me to have data and equipment thats on par with the scientists who publish these articles videos?

You are wrong because you make an assumption that cannot be observed - IE; You believe something is beyond the hill - You dont know whats behind it however you propogate it as truth. That my friend is the basis of religion - IE; Theology - Please refrain from posting and discrediting myself or scientists for utilizing CREDIBLE sources for how the universe is being observed and interacts and stop trolling KIDDO -
pic related

>>2447006
There's no other strategy in a debate over "What does big bang theory say?" aka "What do scientists say?". The only thing to do is call you wrong, and then link to citations of what scientists actually say.

>>2446978

No, the universe will not contract into a single point mass. You need to realize that time is not cyclical, but it is symmetrical and if it makes you feel good, then there is contraction going backwards in time.

But there is absolutely no way there will be contraction of same entirety going forwards in time. Which would be the asymmetrical aspect of matter.

>>2447017
Yes and no. The universe isn't symmetrical with respect to time. It is symmetrical with respect to CPT symmetry though. Need to reverse charge and polarity with time, and then it all works out.

>>2446990
>appeal to authority

>>2447015

i didn't say data or equipment

we're talking about what the universe is going to do in the future

science only knows based on evidence and falsifiability

you can't falsify the future and you can't measure it

therefore you can make arguments with reason

are you capable of that?

>>2447022
If I could, I would ban you.

>>2446990
>Implying all scientists say that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

>>2447029
>dodging the point

>>2447017

see newtons third law, for one

for two, time is cyclical; or do you deny night follows day and day follows night?

that the seasons go full circle?

that the moon cycles?

that procession is a cycle?

cycles and cycles

just because science can't see beyond its tools doesn't mean it can conclude anything but its own ignorance, kiddo

>>2447029
>sucking a cock

>>2447026
Stop conflating two different arguments.

Argument 1- What does big bang theory say? The final and only source of truth in this discussion is the actual scientists who talk about big bang theory. It's a discussion of definition, and the only standard of truth in an argument of definition is appeal to authority or appeal to consensus.

Argument 2- Is big bang theory true? Yes, because of the evidence. See the wiki entry for a good start. Specifically, the universe will not collapse - it will continue expanding forever, because that's clearly what the evidence says.

>>2447026

LOL we've been making arguments all night - you're the one who changes the topic to "why are you incapable of your own thought" - Which is blindingly retarded. All of our understandings are based on a wide census from scientists, There is no one person calling the shots dude.

So to get back to your implausible theory that the universe contracts... We have stated several times why it will in fact NOT do so. You have yet to demonstrate with your own "falsifiability" why it will indeed "crunch".

>>2447032

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
>Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.

And?

>>2447029

this is the nature of your position

somebody can think for themselves and disagrees with you

you want to ban them

shows how secure you are in your position

failfag

>>2447044
>using wikipedia as a source

>>2447042

the topic changed to that because you and scientist and other fags started saying "herp derp scientists said it so it must be true check out this video"

instead of articulating your own position

which naturally causes me to say you can't articulate your own position

prove me wrong

>>2447047
Nope. I just would ban shithead trolls who troll, just like shithead holocaust deniers who blithely ignore the evidence and present no credible arguments.

Yes, you're just as disingenuous as a holocaust denier right now. And yes this is an ad hominem.

>>2447044
Selective reading much?

>However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.

>>2447038

>for two, time is cyclical; or do you deny night follows day and day follows night?

>that the seasons go full circle?

>that the moon cycles?

Ask yourself WHY is this cycle being perpetuated... It has little to do with time and more to do with?

>>2447061
Your trolling or idiocy is commendable. Someone cited wiki. I replied, citing the /exact same goddamn source/ demonstrating that what he cited was actually in /my/ favor.

yah if this has become a wikipedia thread then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

A cyclic model is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

>put "Scientist" in name field
>know nothing about science

>>2447076
Nope. It noted a possible outcome of the universe. The holocaust not happening is also a possibility, though both are clearly wrong based on the evidence, as it says in your quote.

>>2447071

when you say troll you yourself are trolling

you know we're making sincere arguments but you take the easy way out and claim troll

if we're going to ban trolls you're gone

>>2447071
So your entire presence in this thread is due to the fact that you lost an argument with a holocaust denier and now you have to put "Scientist" in your name field and post bullshit on /sci/ to feel smart.

cool story bro

The grammar in this place is really terrible.

/sci/ is starting to look like it's nothing more than a bunch of teenage faggots.

If you can't use proper grammar, then don't come on this website. It's not facebook, nor it is Nickelodeon.com. It is /b/.

I can understand the grammar jokes, like "Trolling is an art." That stuff is funny, I don't have a problem with it.

However, if I see one more faggot start a sentence without a capital letter then I will lose faith in this board.

If I see another person switch "Their, They're, and There" or "Your and You're." I might seriously consider not coming back to it anymore.

If you post with bad grammar in this thread, you're not trolling me. You're just proving yourself do be a dumbass. Regardless of anonymity, you're still out there somewhere. Whoever you are, you're a dumbass.

>>2447099
That's-nice.jpg.

>>2447079

the nature of the cycle is what's important

"to god time is like a piece of paper"

do you admit the cycle?

>>2447071
Holocaustianity is the easiest religion to troll

>>2447067

We articulated our position very well until you kept ignoring our statements, therefore we have to bring in credible information to substantiate our claim. You taking lone shots in the dark and saying this is "Clearly Evident" is downright despicable. You should shoot yourself for not gathering enough evidence or support for your own claim.

I could walk up to your house and claim you fucked your sister, I have no evidence but its my own thought and therefore it must be true! Just because I articulate it well or scream it louder than you doesn't make my contention any more of a true statement.

You cant make this a battle of wits - science doesn't work in favor of one or another. Or perhaps you forgot the definition of science?

>>2447096

it's a "possible outcome" because science can't falsify the future

your position based on observable evidence alone is just as tenuous as any other

you can't have it both ways

>>2447084
>trying to justify using wikipedia as a source

>>2447105

gtfo, this isn't english class

or do you believe in capital letters?

can you read this sentence or is the meaning lost on you because i didn't capitalise?

because i used the s instead of the z did you read that last word?

uptight grammar nazi

>>2447124
>it's a "possible outcome" because science can't falsify the future
You're misusing the term falsify. You mean to say "Science cannot prove that one outcome is incredibly unlikely", and if you meant to say that then you're fucking retarded.

>your position based on observable evidence alone is just as tenuous as any other
No. Science is not as tenuous as all positions. It's better than all other positions. That assertion is unjustifiable, but I will continue to assert it.

>>2447105
why so butthurt

your clearly underage b&

>>2447115

there's more to what we know than what we can measure

science changes its mind all the time

you are taking the current party line, big surprise

when it changes its mind again you'll defend it just as earnestly

typical conformity

in another age you all would be true believing christians

>>2447111

the cycle comes from the fact that space-time is curved.
it does not come from the fact that space-time is cyclical

>>2447146

how does science prove it is unlikely? you have yet to explain that (the actual substance of your supposed argument)

>It's better than all other positions.

ahh, now here we are; Scientism

I propose that our awareness and our ability to transcend our measurements is actually a source of more depth than the tools of science alone are capable of.

>>2447124
>>2447124

>your position based on observable evidence alone is just as tenuous as any other

Dude, you just went full retard right there. you need to stop posting.

>>2447185
Scientism is the idea that science can answer all questions. I never said that. I said that for any idea which conflicts science, science is better.

As for the evidence? We've linked to it numerous times now.

>>2447169

you don't know that and trip 1s don't lie motherfucker :)

37 x 3

>mfw all the scientists ITT just learned something

>>2447160

Isnt that the point of science? To test and theorize what we find observable and make rational decisions based on those findings.

Just because the findings don't go with your theory don't necessarily make you wrong, it just means everyone else doesn't agree with you. Sorry kiddo :(

Its not about following a band wagon, There are things people will always disagree with. But even you at some point would be a band-wagon-follower because its something widely accepted. Using this argument you just keep trying to discredit what I say and not trying to prove anything against it. Its all ad-hom folks, nothing left to see here.

>>2447189
see
>>2447160

>>2447192

> said that for any idea which conflicts science, science is better.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I propose the opposite. the deeper part of our understanding, the deeper part of our awareness, the oldest part of our mind has nothing to do with the self-consciousness and deliberation of science

science is restricted to the relatively immature cortex

>>2447213

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

Looks like I've been arguing with Aether. Oh I feel silly.

>>2446795
troorlolollo

>>2447213

The deeper part of our existence is composed of survival instincts. Fight or flight mechanisms/breeding mechanisms. You think these are more evolved than the "Immature Cortex"????

>>2447213

>>2447220

Me too brotha... me too :(

Test

>>2447197

probably is science has only been around for a short time; what it can measure and test is restricted by how long it's been around, and it certainly can't measure/test the future

so it's fairly restricted

cycles that manifest longer than science knows what to do with, science has no real way to explain

like global warming; it's changed its mind because all of a sudden it's not so simple; now it's "climate change" because the disruptions in what we were measuring don't manifest as simply as we once thought

ie. the recent harsh winters, complex interactions of currents, etc.

science didn't know better until it observed these things happening; science can't even predict the weather 1 month from now and i'm supposed to take your word for the indefinite future direction of the universe?

pffft, sorry but i'm not buying what you're selling

>>2447220
>lose an argument
>call opponent "Aether"

Cool story bro.

>>2447234

survival instincts, and evolutionary record; ie. witness to the past, a time where the cortex wasn't present

i didn't say "more evolved"

i'm talking about wisdom/awareness vs. knowledge/measurements

>>2447220

fyi, this is the third time you've accused me of being Aether and the third time you've been wrong

never been a tripfag

>>2447251

LOL - you dont have to buy shit kiddo - Just because you dont agree with the north pole being north doesn't stop it from being exactly that. Our observations and rationale for thinking the way we do is based on the data. Not based on what we'd like to believe or what is comfortable for us to suppose.

>>2447275
Orly? Well, I think he just entered the thread. My bad. You're both insane.

>>2447245

well, you're both wrong in this

but at least you're consistent

>>2447270

Ever wonder why we dont rely on those instincts anymore? Its probably the same reason Tigers dont conduct experiments and have space programs.

>>2447281
>Well, I think he just entered the thread.

How do you know? Is your Aether sense tingling?

and you call yourself "Scientist"

>>2447280

your "data" is always changing its mind; and more to the point, it misses the forest for the trees

science doesn't know what a forest is

all it sees are trees; but it'll measure the shit out of them!

>>2447292

lulz you think you don't rely on your instincts anymore?

hahahahhahah

just fyi - I was anon but put my name up for lol reasons :D

Props to Scientist for not putting up with propaganda.

>>2447283

Thanks :D - I try to do what I can for Humanity!

>>2447300

Specifically, I saw the post:
>>2447196
The picture, and the emphasis on "1s" led me to believe that Aether was in here.

>>2447314
/bow good sir.

>>2446760
no you are wrong.

the universe is deterministic and cyclic

>>2447310

Seriously? we dont live in the woods anymore dude, Those instincts make up the majority of our sensory perception. But we rely mostly on our "immature cortex" - otherwise this awesome computer would probably not exist dude.

I know you deny being Aether but its pretty obvious now.

>>2447314
>>2447323

they call 'em tripfags for a reason

>>2447334

as for Aether, clinging to a wrong position

typical

as far as instincts, we're not automatons

our motivations are largely old-brained

or let's put it this way

our old brain walks the walk
our cortex talks the talk

>>2447345

Thanks :) - Trolling is hard work for you it seems. Nothing about your arguments is consistent, but your contention is almost zealous! its refreshing :). If only you would understand you are wrong :( but to each his own as I say, eventually there will be a wide enough census on this and you'll be forced to swallow your pride and ignorant theories.

Space is expanding, but more space is not being created. When you stretch a rubberband to expand it is more rubber band created?

Fuck black holes. Gravity is a weak force. The gravity of the entire Earth and moon are acting on you right now. It isn't doing all that much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>2447361

you're wrong about Aether and you're a scientific conformist

you don't know what to do with somebody who can think for himself

as far as census goes, democracy isn't the arbiter of truth

just goes to show tho...conformity

>>2447356

Didnt I say they make up the majority of our sensory perception? or was that too hard for your simple brain to digest?

The fact that you want to rely on the primitive mechanisms is almost insulting, its like you willfully ignore that we evolved into one of the most superior forms ever. With more capabilities than any other creature recorded.

Do yourself a solid and shoot yourself now, The future might look grim for someone as closed minded as yourself.

>>2447363

>Implying that a void has the elastic properties of rubber.

>Implying that block of nothingness has elastic potential energy

>>2447390

>Pic related

ANYWAY, to get back to OP's question....

So, OP, you seem to be asking, if dark energy (not dark matter, that's something else) is causing space to expand, and more space means more dark energy, doesn't that violate conservation of energy?

This is actually a pretty good question, because, naively, you'd think that it DOES violate energy conservation. And guess what? Many cosmologists AGREE ... well, sort of. One way I've heard it described is that energy conservation applies to a closed, isolated system. But a system in which space is continually being created ISN'T closed and isolated -- there's nothing necessarily OUTSIDE the system, but it still doesn't fit general relativity's version of a closed and isolated system. Thus, it's okay for energy conservation to be violated on a global (i.e., universal) scale, as long as it isn't on a local scale (which imposes specific limitations on how and how much energy can be "created" by the expansion of space, so it's not going to lead to perpetual motion machines).

Here's Sean Carroll's take: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

But some physicists disagree, and say that the energy of the universe IS conserved, it's just that the energy of gravitational fields increases in magnitude as space expands -- but the SIGN of the energy of a gravitational field is negative, so that cancels out the extra energy of dark energy.

Here's some dude taking that position: http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/17/energy-is-conserved-in-cosmology/

Sean Carroll makes the point, though, that the all cosmologists AGREE on the math of general relativity. They just differ on how they explain the math in plain language. So this isn't really a fundamental divide among cosmologists, it's just that they might not all agree on how they model general relativity in their heads.

>>2447395

you seem to think you can out think your basic nature

as for sensory perception, you take a lot for granted; your subconscious/unconscious motivations

your science is mostly after the fact

>its like you willfully ignore that we evolved into one of the most superior forms ever. With more capabilities than any other creature recorded.

>recorded

your scientific ego aside, you still miss the point

there's more to life than what we've recorded

our ability to describe/reflect our nature has very little to do with its direction

>>2447398

>implying that space doesn't expand

>>2447411

you're a fag

>mfw

>>2447395
Just having joined this thread, I can tell you, personally, that once you resort to insults, you, and we, would be better off if you left. There's never a reason for personal insults.

>>2447398

No, not even a little bit. You get too hung up in the analogy. I think you are a real life assburgers kid.

Expansion and create are not synonyms and expansion of something doesn't create anything.

>>2447441

Creates displacement.

>>2447441

Creates measurable redshift that implies that a galaxy is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light.

>>2447451
>>2447447

Modify the atributes of something is not the same as creating something.

I don't even think you are clever enough to troll this shit, you are really just that confused.

>>2447462

So, that which is nothing has the ability to modify attributes? So attributes just randomly become modified? Not just minor attributes, but ones such as increasing distance greater at a rate exceeding that at which light travels. Oh, I get it now.

fuck this thread, i'm out

>>2447462

So, is mass an attribute of an object? Can it modify that attribute? Are you really this dumb?

Trolls: -100
"Scientist": -200
Science: 0
/sci/: -300
moot: 9001

>>2447468

You aren't even trolling, you really are just too stupid to understand what is actually being said.

>>2447438

I suppose the other guy insulting me is perfectly acceptable then :D thanks dude, I know its you but damn you should try to get another hobby seriously.

pic related

>>2447481

pretty much this

>>2447491

>No reasonable answer.
>Claim superiority and victory!

fuckyeah.jpg

>>2447499
I missed the other guy (this is a long thread). If you point out his insulting post to me, then I will chide him equally. But really, being insulted oneself does not license insulting another--not in a reasonable discussion. If anything, once he discredits himself by insulting you, you've pretty much won if you keep the discourse at a high level. Don't you think?

>>2447491

Look, I was just seeing if you had a different answer than the accepted one.

"Its dark energy, we don't understand it, but it causes expansion of space."

Its like gravity, except for not as familiar and well understood.

>>2447519

I was the other guy; i called him a fag

see the smiling dog

and i only insulted after he and his cronies insulted in the first place

i kept it strictly business until they took it there and then i don't give a fuck

>>2447038
Your argument about cycles is based on things we view here on Earth.
How can you use theory that you developed based on observation of the Earth on the universe?
It's like comparing a match to the sun.

>>2447519

Naturally - But I had to put the finishing blow. I wasnt going to respond anymore, but since you felt the need to criticize my remark I kinda felt it necessary to straighten it out.

>>2447555

well, both a match and the sun are exothermic

we have approximation, extension, juxtaposition, pattern recognition, transcendence, emergence, etc.

science is only capable of so much

i take patterns and i use my head

i see that the properties of nature are universal

that pauli exclusion works in atoms of Uranium and Plutonium in our nuclear weapons just as it does in supernovae (see Chandrasekhar principle)

if i see time is cyclical every day, every month, every year, every ice age, every procession; after a while i'm thinking damn, the nature of time just may be cyclical

the longer the cycle, the more limited we are in our observation, scientific and otherwise

conjecture is what we've got regardless; when i conjecture the universe itself is cyclical that is consistent with what we observe on smaller scales

when Science claims the universe is not cyclical, that contradicts what we observe on the local level if you will

>>2447568

>But I had to put the finishing blow. I wasnt going to respond anymore

>runs away from argument
>calls it finishing blow

>fag

>>2447583

You're melding time with gravitational forces - thats why you are wrong. Time and Space work in conjunction. Gravity is an effect of mass that produces the cycles you observe.

lrn2observe.

>>2447593

much to my chagrin I think my case is in point with the insults... one can only take so much :(

>>2447596

melding time?

gravity is half of the equation; energy is the other half

it doesn't contradict my point; it clarifies it

>>2447602

and yet you and your side are the ones who started the insults first

don't pretend

the record speaks for itself


or, if you like you can find the first time you were insulted and then I will link your side's insults above it

>>2447615

Yes dude, you have a bad interpretation of time.
I think it would benefit you greatly to study up on cosmological reports. Specifically Sean Carroll, i mentioned him before and another anon did too! Insults aside, your theory has holes because you are equating things disproportionately.

I invite you to do what I ask and then come back to your point with those new thoughts in place.

im done feeding your trollfest though so gnite.

>>2446676
>>2446812
>>2446808

First insults, all on your side

I believe you are the second?

>>2447638

third, rather

>>2447633

keep runnin'

>>2447583
>when Science claims the universe is not cyclical, that contradicts what we observe on the local level if you will

So basically you believe the Earth is flat.

>>2447688

we observe rotation via the sun/moon/ and stars, and are able to infer our spherical nature

nice try tho

>>2447688

that's like saying because there's snow outside right now it must always be winter

but we know better

>>2447706
Except making inferences is precisely what you're attempting to discredit. Experimental data has made it necessary to re-evaluate the previous model of a universe which expands and then contracts cyclically.

You are attempting to favor your own folk impression by dismissing the implication of experimental data.

Hence, you are (by analogy) claiming the Earth is flat.

>>2447688
Basically I think that you should kindly shut the fuck up.

>>2446674

wrong. dark matter pushes the expanding universe out like a web due to the simultaneous "spin-off" of matter and anti-matter particles coming into existence and non-existence as a rate we can't even begin to imagine. Energy never stops being energy, and mass never stops being mass, which is why energy has mass. They don't convert from one form to another.

>>2447730

incorrect; neither approach can prove either way, as the future is uncertain

therefore both sides are making inferences;

my inference is consistent with what i observe locally; your inference is not

the evidence itself is not complete; you say "experimental data has made it necessary to re-evaluate the previous model"

we still don't understand "dark energy" the cosmological constant, etc.

these theories are always changing based on an inherently incomplete data set as far as science is concerned

also, you claim the evidence is all one sided, when the question is still open as far as Science is concerned. see:


One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[3][4] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

>>2447741

dude, there's no need for that;

he made a sincere, and fairly logical argument

I'm doing my best to defend my side even so

>>2447743

this is just flat out wrong

again, see E = mc^2

mass and energy are interchangeable

the more energy converts, like in a star, the more mass (as a star ages, the elements become heavier, eventually Iron, etc.)

the heavier, the more gravity is exerted until, the energy is no longer strong enough to prevent a collapse; if the star keeps accreting mass, it will collapse and supernova or something similar.

see:

Once the nucleosynthesis process arrives at iron-56, the continuation of this process consumes energy (the addition of fragments to nuclei releases less energy than required to break them off the parent nuclei). If the mass of the core exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, electron degeneracy pressure will be unable to support its weight against the force of gravity, and the core will undergo sudden, catastrophic collapse to form a neutron star or (in the case of cores that exceed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit), a black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

>>2447778

It is produced in abundance as a result of fusion in high-mass stars, where the production of nickel-56 (which decays to iron) is the last nuclear fusion reaction that is exothermic, becoming the last element to be produced before collapse of a supernova leads to events that scatter the precursor radionuclides of iron into space.

see Fe

>>2447778
forgive the herr-derr, but if a sun makes energy/light wont it be getting lighter?

no pun intended

>>2447788

It's not how stellar evolution works

as stars age they become heavier

less light, more massive

it's like a child growing up; at middle age, we go over the hill; suddenly we're looking down and not up

what's the difference between climbing a hill and descending one?

climbing a hill requires energy; it's hard work

descending is a matter of gravity; you can ski down; it requires no energy at all except whatever it takes to remain standing, etc.

>>2447788
To a point, yes.

Eventually, there reaches a point when the reaction reverses it'self. The star starts absorbing energy to create heavier elements. Instead of matter turning into energy, we have energy being turned into matter. Some fusion is still occuring but more and more, the core is gaining mass.

What's really weird is that the entire thing reverses itself again once we get to the black hole phase due to Hawking radiation. If Hawking is right, then blackholes are converting matter into energy at a slow rate. Don't ask how this works, it's WAY over my head.

Atleast, thats how I understand it.

>>2447836

well said

itt: a pothead tries assert his personal philosophy on people who know better

Ugh. I feel like I need a shower after reading some of the twattery going on in here.

>>2447919

all you got is ad hom dawg

and it's not even an insult

weed is an entheogen

science is a poor man's drug

lrn2see between the lines

>>2447105

>proving yourself do be
>do be
>nobody pointed this out yet
>wtf sci

>>2447943

ahh nice find

nothing like fucking up grammar while correcting grammar

energy can change form, so there is simply energy being changed from bonds to space

I'm with you, cyclic universe guy.

>>2446568

I haven't read any of the thread beyond OP's post, so I have no idea if someone has said this already.

The notion of the universe expanding is still a point of contention in theoretical physics, with anything from "dark energy" to flawed topology propose as explanations. So the idea that it is expanding as opposed to being static or contracting I will not address.

However, I will say that the ideas of the universe expanding and black holes (of any size) are not mutually exclusive. For instance, we now know that black holes eventually dissipate, as they do cast off energy and particles and emit radiation much like that of hot body radiation. The density of matter in the universe is roughly evenly distributed, so it would be a physical impossibility for all matter in the universe to be consumed by a black hole, as there would be black holes fading in and out of existence, as we have now.

We can even assert now, to some degree of certainty, that even "information" or the "image" that light carries with it will not be lost in the black hole, as it will be emitted in a likewise fashion relative to how it was absorbed. So looking in the past even is not ruled out by the existence of black holes, and our universe never sends its past into a cosmic garbage disposal, just hides it under the rug for a few aeons.

This is very brief, but there is alot of literature on this subject...I would suggest reading it if you're familiar with relativistic physics.

>>2446568

e = mc^2

matter is just compressed energy. The laws of conservation of matter and energy are mutually exclusive

>>2447965

it depends on the nature of the motion involved, and the overall relationship between energy and mass (black holes included)

that black holes dissipate is not in question

however, if they form and function longer than they dissipate, then a cumulative effect of growth of mass/gravity would have the possibility to reverse the expansion

there's nothing in the scientific record

>>2447992

there's nothing in the scientific record* definitive either way on that point

all y'all mother fuckas stoopid

the universe is cheese
black holes is Swiss

>>2448022

wizord my nizzard

This is fucking amazing:

The entire silicon-burning sequence lasts about one day and stops when nickel–56 has been produced. Nickel–56 (which has 28 protons) has a half-life of 6.02 days and decays via beta radiation (in this case, "beta-plus" decay, which is the emission of a positron) to cobalt–56 (27 protons), which in turn has a half-life of 77.3 days as it decays to iron-56 (26 protons). However, only minutes are available for the nickel–56 to decay within the core of a massive star. At the end of the day-long silicon-burning sequence, the star can no longer release energy via nuclear fusion because a nucleus with 56 nucleons has the lowest mass per nucleon (proton and neutron) of all the elements in the alpha process sequence. Although iron–58 and nickel–62 have slightly less mass per nucleon than iron–56,[2] the next step up in the alpha process would be zinc–60, which has slightly more mass per nucleon and thus, would actually consume energy in its production rather than release any. The star has run out of nuclear fuel and within minutes begins to contract. The potential energy of gravitational contraction heats the interior to 5 GK/430 keV and this opposes and delays the contraction. However, since no additional heat energy can be generated via new fusion reactions, the contraction rapidly accelerates into a collapse lasting only a few seconds. The central portion of the star gets crushed into either a neutron star or, if the star is massive enough, a black hole. The outer layers of the star are blown off in an explosion known as a Type II supernova that lasts days to months. The supernova explosion releases a large burst of neutrons, which synthesizes in about one second roughly half the elements heavier than iron, via a neutron-capture mechanism known as the r-process (where the “r” stands for rapid neutron capture).

>>2447931
I'm sorry, but you can't have a scientific argument when you reject the fundamental basis of science - that empirical evidence trumps personal experience.

Your entire argument, as far as I can tell, has been:

"I perceive this pattern in everyday life, therefore it is universal."

You back this up with a logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition. Because "science" has been wrong about some things, it is wrong about everything.

This kind of reasoning is petty common, and fundamentally flawed. The fact that we're sitting here and talking on computers that rely on concepts alien to everyday experience about black holes that are deeply alien to our everyday experience is reason enough to reject everyday experience as a basis on which to speculate, much less a useful indicator of what's out there.

When criticized on your augment, you rely on non-sequitur to escape defending it, usually by citing either an ad hominem made by your opponent (a given on 4chan, really), suggesting that because scientists might have ulterior motives (i.e. conformity) that they are wrong, or questioning the validity of the scientific method without providing any justification other than that it contradicts your personal observation, which, as I've already pointed out, is why we have it in the first place.

>>2448065

nobody ever said science was wrong about everything

you're arguing against a strawman

in terms of "empirical evidence" vs "personal experience" the differences aren't as great as you would like them to be

scientists are persons; all their evidence is the result of personal experiences

likewise, you will find your empirical evidence will support the cyclical nature of day and night, the cycle of the moon, the cycle of the seasons, the solar cycle, the procession cycle.

for you to claim somehow that these observations and empiricism are at odds is disingenuous at best

that i take these patterns and extend them fractal-like onto the universe itself is a leap of faith; but as i've already pointed out, talking about the nature of the universe always requires a level of uncertainty, science talking or not

what i call a leap of faith, science calls for its claims, "the theory or model that best explains the data as it sees it"

even so, the science itself isn't consistent, and there are still scientists (who i presume also use the scientific method) who hold a claim on a cyclical universe

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Just because we perceive the world a certain way does not mean the world is that way. Such as the logical fallacy where we assume that all crows are black because all the crows we have ever seen are black.

The sooner you realize that our senses are imperfect and logic is only as good as its initial premises the sooner we will realize that empirical evidence is the crux of scientific interpretation, not humans.

>>2448629
Unfortunately, we have no alternative besides to use our flawed human senses and perception.

>>2448645

That doesn't mean we must rely solely on our own senses, we can let the raw data do as much of the speaking as possible. Minimizing the human interpretation is vital to scientific objectivity.

While I concede that absolute objectivity is impossible precisely due to the totality of our experiences being dependent on sensory input, the repeatability and verifiability of science as it is understood through the universally persistent phenomenon we call reality via the consensus of independent experience is still closer to objectivity than anything we can individually divine metaphysically.

OP here.
>>2447414 explained perfectly what i've been wondering. thanks anon. the last article explains that the energy is held constant in relative ways (because the additions cancel out due to the + and -), but this still brings up the question of energy being added to the system (x + -y = c; 10x + -10y = 10c). i'm still curious to how additional amount of energy is introduced into the universe.


>>2447965
any recommendations on what to read?

OP here

>>2447414
explained perfectly what i've been wondering. thanks anon. the last article explains that the energy is held constant in relative ways (because the additions cancel out due to the + and -), but this still brings up the question of energy being added to the system (x + -y = c; 10x + -10y = 10c). i'm still curious to how additional amount of energy is introduced into the universe.


>>2447965
any recommendations on what to read?

>>2446568

>>if the universe is full of super massive black holes, how...

the universe isn't "full" of super massive black holes... simple questions require simple answers.

and yes, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

>>2448629

our senses are what interpret our evidence

you just logic failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

In the last scene, the god-like descendant of humanity (the unified mental process of over a trillion, trillion, trillion humans that have spread throughout the universe) watches the stars flicker out, one by one, as the universe finally approaches the state of heat death. Humanity asks AC, Multivac's ultimate descendant, which exists in hyperspace beyond the bounds of gravity or time, the entropy question one last time, before "Man" merges with AC and disappears. AC is still unable to answer, but continues to ponder the question even after space and time cease to exist. Eventually AC discovers the answer, but has nobody to report it to; the universe is already dead. It therefore decides to show the answer by demonstrating the reversal of entropy, creating the universe anew. The story ends with AC's pronouncement,
And AC said: "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light--
—Closing line, The Last Question[2]