Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Recommended Posts

Scientists say the Universe is expanding....But is it?... As I see it we are so small we cannot see the whole picture, Like if we imagine being a flea, do we know what we are standing on?, do we know if its moving or not, and if so to which direction its moving in?.. So my theory is this.. Remember i'm no scientist, so its just my theory.... Well i think the universe is moving towards something, well beyond my comprehension, maybe a black hole, or something we haven't discovered yet.. Anyone wish to comment? Cheers guys :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember i'm no scientist, so its just my theory....

I respect your right to hold any belief you want. If you want to discuss fact, evidence etc then you need to be prepared to talk about science as opposed to personal belief. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acey.... Its not my "belief", its my theory... A theory, Just like MOST scientists Have theories, They don't have all the answers and i have even less. I am trying to provoke a discussion and i'm sure guys on here will also not have the answer, but like me they will have a theory. as i am no scientist my theory isn't science based, But it is a theory "my theory" all the same :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not whether or not you earn your living as a "scientist", but whether by "theory" you mean something that could be tested against observational evidence, in which case your theory would be "scientific". If your theory is not scientific in that sense then I would call it a "belief", though you are of course entitled to call it anything you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its my belief that Vince believes his belief to be a theory! Oooh or is it my theory that Vinces theory is a belief? Doh!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we not just arguing semantics here? Vince has thrown in the ring something he wants to know the answer to, in terms as he understands them, they may not be 'correct' terms, but cannot we just discuss the point he has raised and not just argue about the way it was asked?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Richard...I salute you, That is exactly it that is my theory lol.. No seriously I am pleased someone knows what i mean. I am not trying to be clever, I just want to provoke a debate. I know scientists theories are based on some maths and physics etc, where mines based on an opinion, but i think it could be plausible. Thanks again Richard :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Symesie04... I like it!!, that tickled me:bootyshake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acey... Yes its my belief that i want to call it a theory, but not one based on fact lol :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Richard...I salute you, That is exactly it that is my theory lol.. No seriously I am pleased someone knows what i mean. I am not trying to be clever, I just want to provoke a debate. I know scientists theories are based on some maths and physics etc, where mines based on an opinion, but i think it could be plausible. Thanks again Richard :)

Hey, you certainly provoked a debate, just not the one you started with!! Don't let it put you off making posts though, most people will, I'm sure, try to see the reasons behind your point even if the terminology is quite as they would want. Good on yer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard. It wont put me off.. I'm a yorkshireman lol, And as i say "to question is to know, to know is to question". Kind regards Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think we're to small to see the bigger picture, i think if scientists can understand the fundamentals of the universe phyisically, as in the periodic table, gravity, wavelengths of light etc etc etc.....then they have the ability to see the bigger picture from the ground up.

This discussion could lead anywhere..... spiritualism, physics, philosophy..... I like that you made this topic :)

Sent from a Galaxy S 2 far away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acey has hit the nail on the head. :)

As astronomers (i.e. scientists) we follow an agreed methodology. One of those methods is testing a hypothesis or theory against observable evidence. Another is making testable predictions.

All else is merely wishful thinking (e.g. fairies at the bottom of the garden or Santa Claus).

The beauty and majesty of science is that we discuss (you can call it arguing if you want) and arrive at a reasonable and coherent view of the Universe.

Vince is quite entitled to promolgate a viewpoint but should also be prepared to have constructive critique levelled at potential fundamantal flaws in his train of thought.

Your starter for 10...

Scientists say the Universe is expanding....But is it?...

If it isn't what is your (testable!) explanation for

- the cosmic microwave background radiation

- the observed redshift recession velocities of galaxies (the Hubble expansion)

- the measured abundance of primordial elements in the Univers agreeing very closely to BB theory

Come up with a testable, verifiable theory and I'll personally buy you your ticket to Stockholm for your Nobel prize :)

(None of this is personal, take it with appropriate pinch of salt)

Edited by Grunthos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, I think this is all getting a bit silly. Are you really saying that we cannot have the odd flight of fancy because it is not testable? Calling amatuer astronomers 'scientists' because we look at the stars is taking it a bit far too, most of us are merely pursuing a hobby, something that is enjoyable for us personally, and along the way we post items on SGL because we want to know what others think.

If you are going to straight-jacket people into checking the definition of every word they put into a post, then you will frighten them from every posting anything for fear of being pulled up over their choice of words.

Now you may be thinking that I am over reacting to what has been said and that is fair enough and feel free to shot me down if you wish, but lets keep this forum as open as possible and not a 'closed shop' to only those that say the right things in the correct way. You might like to think because you look at the stars that you are a 'scientist' and that is fine but don't berate others, and belittle their thoughts, because that is not the way to encourage anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, its a question of really a statement of belief and something that is testable.

If I say, "I believe the moon is made of cheese" and that this is my belief, then that's really all you can say about it - as in "I met someone the other day that believes the moon is made of cheese". There isn't really any room for debate, its what I believe and that is that.

If I say, "I have a theory, that the universe is all being sucked into a black hole" then we can discuss it. I can say why I believe it, present evidence, suggest tests. You can say why it seems unlikely, and what problems might need to be overcome. We can then discuss it, and we're in danger of doing science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if science have got it wrong?, They have got it wrong before, I know they may probably be right.Do you know with 100% certainty? lets start with cosmic microwave background radiation. ok suppose this as come from the Big Bang... Where's the proof, Scientist don't have the answer to that "YET" they are still looking for the Higgs Boson. I'm Not saying they won't find it they may well do But as yet there is no 100% proof, And yes the "Redshift" indicates that the Universe is expanding and speeding up, But expanding from what, we don't have a Big Bang Yet. (And i Know a "blueshift" indicates the Universe is contracting)...As for abundance of primordial, I don't know about that, I didn't do chemistry at school, But i know this.... In the beginning there where only four elements... Hydrogen, Helium Beryllium and lithium, And some how all the other elements derived from these, It would have taken an immense of heat about 10,000,000 kelvin (absolute kelvin = -274 degrees Celsius), now this might have been achieved in the "big bang" or something else a giant star imploding or something or some other force that we haven't discovered yet.. Think what you like on this one. Anyway I'm not saying i know the answer or that the scientist know... All i want is a discussion, isn't that how we ALL learn? even scientist.. Regards Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a computer simulation i saw on tv...of course with Prof. Cox lol...but it involved inputing everything we know about gravity and mass (and obviously much more) into the computer simulation, then using that data to start a big bang type reaction.

The results, obviously speeded up thousands of times, created a view of the universe as we see it today.... as the simulation was happening the maths involved came to life, showing millions of particles gathering to gain mass...and as they did the gravity affected the other particles creating clusters of stars and galaxies....a short explanation of it...but it was pretty darn cool to watch.

That said...it was only a simulation, but it was a simulation that showed more or less accurate results which we can see with our own eyes and telescopes; all created with data collected from our current understanding of physics in the universe.

Sent from a Galaxy S 2 far away.

Edited by Monki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acey is right if you cannot prove it then it is opinion/belief.

I know scientists theories are based on some maths and physics etc, where mines based on an opinion, but i think it could be plausible.

You put up a theory then prove it via observation/maths. Until proved it is just an unproven opinion and hate to say it counts for nothing.

You are after all posting in a Physics, Space Science and Theories section.

By the way the observed evidence is that all objects in all directions are moving away, that is expansion. You do not expand in all directions to a black hole, a black hole is a point (effectively, so how do objects on the other side to the black how expand to it by moving away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is one thing though, theorists say the expansion of the universe is speeding up, sooooo, if there is an initial big bang, momentum says it should slow down? as energy dissipates and reduces the further you get away from from initial explosion?

If it is increasing, what could be pulling the universe faster away from the initial moment?

Other universes? Gravity, or gravities, must surely be pulling our universe outwards?

Oh, and yes theories are based on experiments and tested concepts about what is known, but as we all know, we seem to always "discover" new theories all the time, and scientist alter there hypothesis' all the damned time, but at the truth of things, they are just best guessing as they don't know what we cannot comprehend/ cannot see as yet things that exist way out there.

It is like cheese is bad for you / good for you / bad for you etc.

I may be simplifying things, but at the end of the day scientists may understand and study more than your average guy, but if they themselves know and can prove .000001% of all know space facts, it still leaves a massive amount they can only guess about and theorize as best guesses.

Edited by Doughzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I say... Could there be other forces out there that science as of yet haven't discovered?, And I still say this.. There is a possibility, though very small that we are moving towards something maybe a multiverse or some other force or dimension. I know we are "expanding" in all directions but that still doesn't prove anything in my "opinion". Look at it this way.... Doesn't a baby grow within its womb till it is born out in to the world?, YES a world very different from what the baby as know, wasn't the baby expanding in all direction?.. I'm Sorry!... We don't know all the answers, Space is so vast that even with the hubble we cannot see what's really beyond our own doorstep and this is because all the dust and matter is amplified over distance, it becomes denser and denser, maybe one day (long after we are gone) we may have some technology which will see through this dust and matter and transmit a signal back over an infinite span of space ... Maybe i Have posted this in the wrong section, But i'm sure a lot of other things on here are not proven, so it is only an opinion/Belief. there is no answer yet to this. We could go on forever until science proves it otherwise, I'm just trying to understand this through discussion. Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Doughzer.... some one else who can think outside the box. kind Regards Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Flea's main limitation is not a-priori that it is small, but more that it doesn't have the mental capacities (tools!) to explore it's "universe", and cannot really ASK others who might have done? :p Although Brian Cox likes to celebrate his "smallness", therein, he sounds more like a "person of faith" than the champion of "rationalism" he intends? But then "Tele-Evangelism" seems to have spread to science too? [teasing] :blob10:

However SMALL, we do: "Stand on the shoulders of giants" - As oft' quoted. We don't "know all the answers", but gaps in current knowledge aren't an "equal opportunities employer"! It is [iMO] important to take note of others' ideas... but to favour those theories (whatever) that seem more LIKELY. To me, that doesn't exclude original thinking, idle speculation, discussion... faith even. Sadly, we now live in a very "Black & White" world. Such thinkers do seem to dominate the (BBC) media now, but maybe that a (my) generational perception. :o

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.