[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 110 KB, 610x760, 1292772168227.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269707 No.2269707 [Reply] [Original]

What do you faggots make of this?

http://blastr.com/2010/12/scientists-discover-proof.php

>> No.2269715

it's only a theory.

pretty cool though

>> No.2269714

I saw this on digg and thought of /sci/. I know that I'd be really happy if it turns out the universe is cyclic.

>> No.2269733

that is interesting, sure would be something to see two massive black holes collide and the result of it

>> No.2269772

>>2269715
every thing is just a ''theory"

>> No.2269787

There's much higher resolution data in the pipeline. I think we should hold the proverbial horses long enough to make sure these apparent structures aren't just artefacts of lower resolution observation.

From a philosophical perspective, I don't understand the appeal of a cyclic universe. I would rather the universe proceed towards a distant fate of ultimate dissipation than be doomed to repeat the same shit again and again without even any potential for advancement.

>> No.2269809

>>2269715
>>2269772
Whoa, it's not even a theory. It's one paper. C'mon...
But still this is really interesting, thanks for bringing it up OP.

>> No.2269811
File: 46 KB, 520x464, mobile_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269811

>>2269772
(a geuss)

>> No.2269816

fuck yea! though i'm not sure i understand completely. some CMB pre-dates big bang?

big bang happens, matter expands, temperatures drop. then gravity pulls (some?) of it back together, several black holes merge to create another big bang perhaps? or alternatively, the endgame is all energy is dissipated evenly throughout.
sorry thinking out loud, things i was thinking about a few years back. trying to put it together with the scientific consensus.

>> No.2269818

Delicious ass.

>> No.2269820

>>2269818
True scientist.

>we just discovered what could be a fundamental truth of the universe
>yeah, man, but look at dat ass

>> No.2269852

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268

>> No.2269855
File: 33 KB, 550x352, CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundMap-thumb-550x352-54296..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269855

>>2269818

Its got nothing on this.

>> No.2269858

>>2269855
Woah, man! Boobs!

>> No.2269864
File: 149 KB, 1008x720, wierd titties cat comparative.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269864

>>2269858

I see where you're going with this.

>> No.2269874

I'd just like to point out that this doesn't completely invalidate alternate universes. There could very well be other cyclical universes outside our own. This shit is great btw, thanks for posting this.

>> No.2269879

Now what would be even more interesting, is if the laws of physics changed between each new iteration of the universe...

Sort of like introducing a new seed into the program.

>> No.2269886

>>2269707
>Theory that gets ahead of itself
>"Their deductions have been met with some doubt within the astrophysics community, and three papers have already been written to rebut their claims."
>A picture of mirror Spock

That's a great scientific journal you have there /sc/i

>> No.2269891

>>2269879
If this were the case then it wouldn't be a certified cyclic Universe, since each time the laws change there is a chance the everyone will continue to expand infinitely instead of set back to 0, which would end the cycle.

>> No.2269893

So now we might have a way to see beyond the first few moments of this universe? Do the "rings" fade over the eons, so we can date them, and figure out if there have been more than one previous universe. Can we figure out if the physical laws of those universes were different. It's so cool when the observable cosmos suddenly gets bigger

>> No.2269896

@DeadmanLives:

I have always felt that was the point of Einstein's statement, as he also said that no energy ever dies, it only changes form, as if he were directly talking about the eternal spirit? I think he was onto something, as scientists are also saying that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. They say that the atoms that were born with the Big Bang, make-up 90 percent of our bodies, and that the other 10 percent of our bodies is made-up of younger atoms that are 5.4 bllion years old. Now, here is the scary part, these atoms never age. I will refer you to the religious teaching that we are as old as the universe--or older. That saying parallels the scientific information, concerning the age of the atoms that form our bodies, and I would assume, spirits

>lol

>> No.2271473

bump for input from midday /sci/