Known Universe: Decoding the Skies

,    »  -   277 Comments

Known Universe: Decoding the SkiesHow our ancient forbearers decoded the night sky and built the foundations of civilization. Not with the help of ancient astronauts but through their own perseverance and innate intellect.

Our ancestors' relationship with the heavens led to some of mankind's ancient discoveries and greatest creations.

The ancient Greeks discovered Earth was round; the Polynesians used the sun and stars to navigate vast oceans in simple canoes; some think amazing structures like Stonehenge were designed to observe the sky.

Now, Known Universe examines mankind's first observations of the cosmos to understand how they put us on the path to modern discovery.

Watch the full documentary now

521
5.11
12345678910
Ratings: 5.11/10 from 9 users.
  • fonbindelhofas

    for u.s. public only, dumb stuff about alian ****

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Veronica-Clarke/100002936034635 Veronica Clarke

    Aliens visiting ancient people drivel. Also very generalised comments about 'the ancients' instead of specific information. Not recommended.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689028007 Dan Banan Nyström

    I thought this sh*t was limited to the History channel and not NatGeo? God damn ancient aliens conspiracy theorist bs. I can go on...

  • bogdanvladimir

    Strange lights in the sky....how stupid can you be?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Allan-James-Quenneville/510790203 Allan James Quenneville

    the visual editing is mindless cutscenes that flash over and over with no real direction. done by someone with add for people with add. this wouldn't be horrible as an audio doc. the visuals are almost pointless.

  • José Antonio Gutiérrez

    I agree with Allan, the visuals are over exaggerated.

  • sebastien972

    Warning! This doc may hurt your intelligence.

  • Aaylsworth

    I have to agree with all comments below. The editing is way too fast and the content seems weak like Fox propaganda :p.

  • Robyn318

    This is pretty basic stuff, however I did find some interesting things in it.

    I think it is pretty funny that people called in to find out what the stars were in the night sky. I guess the earth is the center of the universe once again.

    I found it interesting that the Apollo astronauts used the sextant to stay on course, I didnt know that.

    I know ancient aliens theory isnt very popular, but it does answer some otherwise difficult questions.

  • Jack1952

    If we don't know how something happened, it must have been aliens? I can't think of one question that this theory would be the the most logical answer. That doesn't include the fact that there is absolutely no physical evidence anywhere, of any kind, to support this theory. It is conjecture, that's all it is.

  • Robyn318

    How do you account for the Mayan advance understanding of time and the cosmos? Im not saying it is fact, Im saying it is a theory that should be looked at.

  • phillip wong

    Good one..

  • Jack1952

    You will have to be a little more specific on what was so advanced about their knowledge before I can account for their understanding of time and the cosmos. As we do not have any physical evidence showing alien involvement, we must assume that Mayan scholars were an intelligent and dedicated group. Any knowledge they had came from intensive observation and an ability to interpret the data gathered in a cohesive and intelligent manner. No need for ET's help. It is condescending to think that they would not be able to procure knowledge on their own.

    Once again, as long as there are no knick knacks, gadgets, or mis-placed tools that aliens have inadvertently left behind, we have no physical evidence. With no evidence, we do not have even the beginnings of a theory.

  • Jack1952

    What is galling is that the History channel tries to make it seem that alien intervention could actually be an historical fact. That Nat Geo would have fallen this low is a travesty.

  • dewflirt

    All these alien programmes are commissioned by the government. It's their way of breaking us in gently, so we don't panic when ET comes home :)

  • Rock Star

    wow! how many people on earth believe in gods, ghosts or even unicorns lol is that anymore believable than aliens how close minded do u have to be its basic math guys a hundred billion galaxies...... UMM NOT EVEN A FEW OF THEM HAVE PLANETS WITH INTELLIGENT LIFE? COME ON NOW!

  • toughjustice

    this stuff about ancient aliens.. wtf.. are we replacing god with aliens now.. ? stupid stuff :(

    how about a little 'faith' in humanity, and our awsome brains that can actually try and understand the world around us. no need for aliens or gods.

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    Ancient Aliens is on the History Channel. Therefore, it must be true. ^^

  • Jack1952

    What does the likelihood of intelligent life on other planets have to do with aliens helping the Egyptians build the pyramids? That life exists on other planets is a logical assumption but unfortunately is still lacking in evidence. Aliens coming to earth and assisting ancient man cannot even be an assumption since there is no direct physical evidence that begins to support it. If you can believe in these ancient aliens without proof then why not believe in unicorns? There is no proof of them either.

  • Jack1952

    Those reptilian agents in our government don't want us to be too frightened when they reveal their lizard likeness. A couple more years of preparation and the human race will be ready to accept intelligent chameleons into our society as equals. Or there will be a major war between our species.

  • Guest

    Makes me wonder how much control cosmologists, astrophysicists and the likes have in being portrayed in documentaries along with the Giorgio Tsoukalos bunch.
    Could they be in support of this doc because it is under the wings of National Geographic? Would they have a say in what the documentary illustrates?
    If so then why?
    az

  • docoman

    Jack, there is a big problem with your logic on this one. You say that life existing on other planets is a logical assumption, even though there is no evidence as yet. Then go on to say that Aliens having assisted ancient man cannot even be an assumption as there is no direct evidence.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Implying that it is logical for yourself to have a belief based on no evidence, but someone else is silly if they do the same thing on a different issue, is itself silly.
    I agree with what Rock Star said, that believing in Aliens having visited earth is statistically less absurd then believing in ghosts, gods or unicorns.

  • dewflirt

    Now it all makes sense, global warming, lizards! Only an ice age can save us now!!!!

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    I am making an assumption but I would imagine, scientist or not, most people would like to be apart of any media project for the "fame & notoriety." I bet they don't have too much say in the content of the documentary as well as it's editing.

    That being said, I am a bit disappointed with NGC, Discovery, History channel (and most educational channels) focus on sensationalism and the broadcast of such nauseating shows as Ancient Aliens, Finding Bigfoot, and most paranormal programs. It saddens me that mainstream media blends pseudo with Truth. I understand they create these ridiculous shows for the ratings. What does that say about us, the viewer?

  • Jack1952

    I'm glad somebody gets it. I was starting to think that I was alone in the world.

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    You aren't alone. There are plenty of aliens among you. *tips tinfoil hat*

  • Guest

    Makes me wonder how many people are on international space stations at this very moment. If a worldwide cataclysm was to happen, would they know? would they think the connection got cut? could they connect with each other? what would they do? could they survive? would they eventually find a way to come back? when? would they become the aliens? How much survival tools, food, energy do they cary?
    No i didn't smoke or drink anything...just wondering and wandering with the intergalactic thoughts of my mind.
    az

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    Brains are cool. :)

  • Jack1952

    I was alive in 1963 therefore I must have been involved in the shooting of JFK. That is the same logic as Rock Star uses with his statement. One is not proof of the other.

    Until recently the only planets that we knew, as fact, existed only in our solar system. Logic dictated that they must exist around other stars also but there was no evidence to prove it so science was reluctant to say for certainty that these planets existed. Then, in 1992, a planet was discovered outside of our solar system and since then over 700 have been found. Now, we know for fact that these planets do exist and are actually quite common. Since we already know of one planet in our solar system that has evolved life, it would seem likely that it would happen on other similar planets also. We just haven't found it yet, although there is a chance, however slight, that we are alone.

    Since we have no proof of life outside earth how can we then even begin to theorize that aliens helped build the pyramids. You can't have this theory without proof of their existence. It is illogical.

    Levels of absurdity is not the issue. The issue is facts that have been brought into evidence. No facts, no evidence as of yet.

  • Jack1952

    Would make a great sci-fi movie or novel.

  • dewflirt

    I'm going to stay as still as possible and hardly breath at all, that way I might be too cold to be eaten. Can't even hide out at the north pole because IT'S MELTING!!!! Not hysterical, not paranoid, just very very aware ;)

  • Guest

    The evidence may be the pyramids of Giza and what they contained. If only we could for sure date them, understand their purpose including why are there those shafts. Giza is a world apart from the rest of the pyramids, the others are merely copies of the first model at least in Egypt.
    Who knows exactly what was found in the main pyramid and why Egypt keeps a lot of vaults locked up.
    But then again, if we trust every one, every government, every Egyptologist research teams, ...then of course the pyramids are what they are telling us and so is the Sphinx.
    Trust is all you need...hey?
    az

  • Guest

    Let's hope Lucas comes around every now and then.
    az

  • dewflirt

    They're for sharpening giant razor blades, the sort a big man like the Mighty Achem-aten might use ;)

  • Guest

    If you want me to hire you when Lucas confirm the contract, you better come up with an other idea.
    That won't "cut" it!
    az

  • dewflirt

    They are the nipples of Gaia, once flowing with the milk of human kindness but now run dry. The are waiting for Old Man River (aka Nile) to come gently lapping ;)

  • docoman

    Yes, I know what you typed about planets outside our solar system. I'm not arguing that Aliens have visited earth, personally I think it's unlikely, and I completely agree with what you posted earlier about the Mayans.

    The issue I was talking about was your logic in your reply to Rock Star. You are happy to accept a theory, outline how you believe it is a mathematical probability (in your latest post, as I said, nothing I didn't already know) but concede there is no evidence, then go on to say that someone can't have a theory if there are no supporting facts. You do the same thing in your recent post. You argue that you can have a theory based on what would seem likely but has no evidence, but someone else can't have a theory without any evidence. You are right, it is illogical.

    As I said, I agree with his idea that it is less absurd to think ET's may have visited then to believe in ghosts, gods ect. Other then that, and the fact that he said 'intelligent' life, Rock Star said pretty much the same as the body of your last post, though not so eloquently or thoroughly.

  • docoman

    Az, have you seen any of the stuff done by John Anthony West, and Christopher Dunn?
    I had the pleasure of living in Cairo for a couple of years, been to Giza many times. They always amazed me every time.

  • brutusaurio

    A collection of beautiful images, good sound, and little more.
    Simply a humble recommendation: Don't waste your time watching this documentary.
    You can do other things like visiting your parents in law or taking a 45 minute and 52 second nap, but please don´t see this.

  • Guest

    Now you're talking, hired! Can you also hold a camera?
    az

  • indieisin

    promoting stupidity, are we?

    some parts of this documentary are speculative at best - but they explicitly state this, dont they?

    knowing that the Greeks discovered the earth was round, and figured out the circumference down to a percent.. well, who cares, right?

    promote your own ignorance, sleep your life away or give your own in laws a much deserved visit, but just realize we have enough stupidity in this world to go around - we don't need you promoting any more of it.

  • dewflirt

    That's your job, I'll bring the pyramids ;)

  • Guest

    Actually i just started a film making class this past saturday....Who knows may be i'll have a doc on here before the year's end....wishfull thinking is always a good way to walk forward. So far it's really neat. A woman who is part of the class just presented a documentary at the Sedona film festival about the extinction of the Sinixt nation in Canada, called We Are Not Extinct...she made me feel like i was in over my head. But i got an idea...we shall see.
    az

  • brutusaurio

    I love your sense of humour.

    I'm not talking about speculation and I'm not promoting anything you posted here. This documentary, in my opinion, is a compilation of images and information of other documentaries with a good presentation.

    I think National Geographic hasn't made a big effort producing this documentary. But if you liked it, it's OK.

    It's a good thing the comments posted here are very rich, even yours. I mean it. In the end, this documentary is getting interesting.

    Please, make an assessment of this documentary (out of ten). Mine is 4 out of 10

  • Rock Star

    my point was that there's alot more strange **** that half the world believes in. god made the earth in a few days? i missed the part where it says he made dinosaurs long before man just to **** with paleontologists. i guess man walked out of a cave one day and said to his buddies "hey lets go build some crazy **** just cause" and lets not invent the wheel to help us do it... scientists now think we were organisms that crashed on earth from a comet so i think technically that makes us aliens as well. some of the ppl in these shows are in the top of there field in exploring this stuff. if your cars broken u know nothing about cars so u take it to a mechanic and he says you need a new hose do u not believe him? this is what he does.now u maybe a little skeptic if u don't know the guy but for the most part u believe him. no? how ever on the newest episode of ancient aliens there talkin about how bigfoot is an alien aswell so... oh the math is called the drake equation.. ps i do believe in god but try not to believe everything im told or heard i use common sense at least i think i do.

  • Robyn318

    I agree with your view, however I find it very interesting that a ‘barbaric’ culture that survived on corn (a heavy feeder) in a rainforest with very thin topsoil would expend so much energy on understanding time. They had a complex system of interconnected calendars that went from about 3114 BCE and ended in 2012 with the galactic alignment.
    I consider that an advance understanding of time and the cosmos.

    Their writings say that a ‘god’ came and gave them the knowledge and technology to build their civilization, which was almost completely dedicated to him. This isnt an isolated incident either; almost every 'primitive' culture has the same 'basic' story that 'gods' created them or gave them knowledge. To me information and technology are 'tools' left behind.

  • Robyn318

    Even if you are a minority of one the truth is still the truth - Ghandi

  • ProudinUS

    That was a good quote. We should all remember that.

  • Jack1952

    Since you still cannot see the logic in my reply, it is apparent that my eloquence is still lacking. I feel compelled, however, to try once more.

    My reply was based on the idea of precedence. If it could happen once there is no reason to assume that it wouldn't happen twice. Life evolving on earth is the precedence that would indicate that life could evolve somewhere else. That was the point of my planet example. A logical assumption, that lacked in evidence, which was later found to be fact.

    There is no verifiable evidence of alien presence on earth. As a matter of fact, we do not even know how to travel over the immense distances of inter-galactic space. As far as we know, we are limited by the laws of physics which say we cannot exceed light speed. We have no precedence which says that it can be done or that it has been done by ETs , therefore, we do not have the makings of an assumption.

    My mistake was probably in thinking that Rock Star was supporting the idea of alien intervention. When I read it again, I could see that he could be saying that this was no crazier an idea that any of the other ideas that he mentioned. I can't argue with him there.

  • Jack1952

    Thanks. Now I can quote Ghandi when I'm being particularly bull headed.

  • Jack1952

    Hide in a convincing lizard costume. You can stand motionless while basking on a rock in a tropical paradise and global warming be damned.

  • dewflirt

    I've got it on now ;)

  • Guest

    This calls for a new patchwork quilt.
    az

  • dewflirt

    Yes,Yes,Yeeeeeeeees ;)

  • docoman

    Mate, again, there is nothing you've said I didn't know. I agree with you. I see your logic, and agree with most of it. All except the part where you implied that it is fine for yourself to have a belief based on no evidence, but it is silly if Rock Star did the same.
    Other then that, I completely concur.

  • Jack1952

    I guess we're talking in circles here. I don't think that I implied that I believe anything without evidence. If asked "Do you believe that life exists outside of earth...yes or no?" then I would have to say "No." due to lack of evidence. If asked to expand on this question, then I would say that one could make a logical assumption, based on the precedence of life on earth, that it could exist elsewhere but we have no proof. That is not a belief system of "yes there is" or "no there isn't". It is an explicit understanding of what the possibility is.

    I'm glad you called me on this. You forced me to examine my reasoning and I mulled this over for hours thinking that maybe I was being hypocritical. A little self examination never hurt anyone.

  • Robyn318

    As you have said in a previous post that we must assume these past cultures were “intelligent and dedicated group”s and “Any knowledge they had came from intensive observation and an ability to interpret the data gathered in a cohesive and intelligent manner.” If this really is the case, why are you so willing to dismiss what they all say that they saw or experienced? Again, hundreds if not thousands of past cultures have said they were ‘visited’; some have altered their culture around this experience; as we have seen with the cargo cults. I dont get the disconnect in your reasoning.

  • Jack1952

    Isn't that what all religions do? Gabriel appeared to Mohammed, as the messenger of Allah, and revealed the Koran. Christians say that the Bible is inspired by God and that he came to us as Jesus to save us from our sins. I don't know how many times I have heard Christians say that all the knowledge they need to know comes from the Bible, the revealed word of God. The Pope is supposed to be the infallible representative of God. This claim of direct contact with the divine adds legitimacy to those who are the leaders of their respective religious institutions. No reason to think the ancients were any different.

    The study of the heavens is a common thread among many, if not most, of the ancient religions, going back till the earliest times of humanity. Observations would have been passed on down for countless generations. It was a central aspect of their lives. That patterns would emerge and that the scholars of those times, usually priests, would write them down is to be expected. That is human intelligence, not divine or alien intervention.

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    To piggyback on your statement, many Vikings thought mythical wolves created solar eclipses by biting and stopping the sun. It would be easy for people back then to think this due to the lack of technological advances. It would be just as easy for ancient cultures to think aliens "showed" themselves to their people, mistaking that for common natural phenomena. It's interesting how many people today don't realize this easy concept. It makes me wonder how much humanity really has progressed since those times...

  • Robyn318

    "The study of the heavens is a common thread among many, if not most, of the ancient religions, going back till the earliest times of humanity. "

    The study of the galactic alignment is not a common thread; it requires sophisticated technology that wasn’t available then. How do you explain this phenomenon?

  • docoman

    We are talking in circles aren't we. We were both being a little harsh and assuming more then was said, funny thing is we both think the same. lol.

    One thing I'd like to know what you think about.
    I rarely see anyone mention, as you alluded to when you said we may be alone, when discussing the probability of life evolving elsewhere, is the fact we don't properly understand yet the exact composition of the 'primordial soup', and all of the likely/possibly complicated conditions required for life to start and evolve. (assuming of course that evolution is in fact correct.) And thus, even though we may find many more planets that are the right distance from their sun and the right sort of composition of planet (atmosphere, protective magnetic field requiring a molten metallic core, geothermally active, liquid water, possibly a moon ect), the exact combination of conditions may yet be far more complicated then we realize. This would have the affect of making it much less likely to occur, and therefore the probability that life has evolved elsewhere may well be much lower then thought maybe even highly unlikely, in effect skewing the Drake equation. This idea leading to/explaining the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter.

  • lakhotason

    There isn't a "galactic alignment".

  • Robyn318

    Then what is supposed to happen on Dec. 21, 2012 with the winter solstice?

  • lakhotason

    Winter begins, same as always. The "galactic alignment" is just some made up BS.

  • docoman

    How exactly do you know for sure that they didn't have what you call sophisticated technology? How would you explain the Dogon tribe in Africa knowing of Sirius B (and possibly C) before any astronomers? Can't see them with the naked eye. I'm not making any judgements, just asking your thoughts.

  • lakhotason

    How do you know they did have sophisticated technology? There is nothing they left behind that would lead anyone to believe they did. Even their vaunted calender system isn't correct.

    As for the Dogon that was research done in the 1930's and has been dismissed by later anthropologists.

  • docoman

    More of what I mean is, if you visited Earth today, and only read one of the religious views on how we got here, (assuming the visitor knew that evolution is correct, if it is), they would think that we were very simple, thinking that 'god' did this and that, when in fact it was only a twist used by people for power/money ect. Many today say we have/are visited by god/angles ect. Why, if that is in fact the truth about religion being a population control tool, would it be any different to the past, and the stories about 'gods' is all really BS by the rulers of their time.

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    Maybe they left behind tinfoil hats?

  • Robyn318

    If they did have the technology, where is it?

    I havent done any significant research on the Dogon tribe; after I finish the book Im reading now, I’ll see if I can find an archeological publication on their situation.

  • docoman

    I didn't say they did, but I do tend to believe that the 'hard to explain' things the ancients left was not due to outside help, but was in fact done by people who were every bit as intelligent as we are today. To me, this makes more sense then Aliens, or God, but I may well be wrong.
    Homo Sapiens have been around more or less about 200 k years we think. And we did pretty much nothing for about 185 k of those, even though we were as intelligent as we are today? Add in that it seems the planet has a 100k year major ice age cycle (possibly explained by the Milankovitch cycles), as well as other ice ages in between, plus other possibilities like a large meteor ect , is it not possible that we have attained fairly high levels of technology in the past, only to have some event hit us back to basic survival level, losing that knowledge in the process? Time and possible disaster affects may have taken more evidence. I know there is little archaeological evidence of this, but it could be argued that there are some to be found in some ancient monuments like the Sphinx. Chris Dunn has some interesting observations on some of the things left by the ancients in stone from an engineers point of view. Which, to my knowledge the Egyptologists haven't even come close to adequately addressing, not by a long way.
    I don't know, but to me, that makes more sense and seems more probable then God or Aliens doing what we still see, e.g Giza. To say that someone the same as me but some generations earlier couldn't have possibly done something that difficult without some help is both arrogant and self degrading at the same time in my opinion.
    Maybe in 50k years time, if we're still around, they'll say going to the moon couldn't have been done by those ignorant people back then, they were still going to church and killing each other.

    PS I hadn't read about the Dogon tribe research being dismissed. Do you have any links handy? I would be interested to read it.

  • Robyn318

    AND on that same date is the ‘New Year’s Eve’ of the Precession of the Equinoxes, where the Winter solstice sun is ‘aligned’ with the center of our galaxy; a phenomenon that occurs once every 26,000 +/- years.

  • lakhotason

    First I'll say that evolution is a fact. Second, what is to say that the visitor does not have a god? Technological advancement doesn't necessarily imply social advancement.

  • docoman

    Technological advancement doesn't necessarily imply social advancement, I totally agree, the Nazi's are a good example.

  • Robyn318

    And Reynolds Aluminum co. found them.

  • docoman

    It would be very handy if we could travel faster then light. We could send a telescope out 4.5k light years ect, stop, turn back and if we could magnify enough, watch if/when/how the Sphinx and other things were done.

  • lakhotason

    So say the pseudo-scientists. Astronomers, cosmologists, NASA, and all others who study the galaxy say otherwise. Who do you wish to believe?

  • lakhotason

    Hell for that matter look at the whole lot of us. The Nazi's are just at the bottom of the scale.

  • Robyn318

    "Isn't that what all religions do? "

    We arent talking about religion here, we are talking about verifiable evidence of their knowing about an event 600 or more years into the future; they were considered savages by the Europeans who conquered them, yet they were centuries ahead in scientific knowledge.

    HOW did they gain this "advance' knowledge of mathematics, time and space, and the working of our Universe?

  • docoman

    A full run of Procession of the Equinoxes takes close to 26k years, just under I think. A full lap of the solar system around the galaxy takes, we think, around 240 Million years, give or take a few.

    Doh, I re-read your post. I get what you were saying now.

  • docoman

    I think the same way we have what we know.... observing, measuring, theorizing, testing, understanding.

  • dewflirt

    Just been reading an article on Richard hoagland, ig-Nobel laureate/face on mars man. His latest is the alignment will cause a 'torsion field' and unspecified things will happen. If you want to know more, buy the DVD ! His mate, David Willcocks says it might cause a solar flares, polar shift, or (my favorite) a hyperdimensional jump out of 3d space-time into a higher aetheric density. Article ends, sun has been roughly in the galactic centre for almost 30 years. Currently 6 degrees off but was actually closest in 1998. No 2012 alignment, sorry :)

  • docoman

    Ohh no! I'm big enough in 3D :( lol.

  • lakhotason

    They were not centuries ahead, not even in astronomy. How advanced can a people be in astronomy if they believed the closest star (the sun) to be a god? They didn't know a star from a god?

    As for as knowing the future, they didn't know the future. What they did know is relatively easy. All they did, without them even knowing it, was to describe a circle. Give me a moving arc of light in the sky and if I know the degrees of arc and its speed relative to me, I can tell you when that point of light will come back around. Even if it is a billion years

  • Guest

    I think as a human mass we create our reality and if enough people believe in one outcome for dec 2012, there are chances that it may happen that way, however crazy the idea is. If enough believe that nothing (extraordinary) will happen then that's what will happen. What will happen on dec 2012 is happening progressively as we speak, we are creating it and all sides are doing their best to have their way.
    az

  • Guest

    About the Dogon, that's debatable still. The Dogon had an oral tradition of their knowledge.
    az

  • lakhotason

    But the problem with the Dogon is THEY cannot agree what the tradition is supposed to be.

  • Sarcastic_Drew

    I agree. Just because they didn't have modern educational/training/learning tools doesn't mean they were r*tarded. The great thing about humans is our skill of deducing. It would have been quite simple to come up with valid scientific conclusions back then because they all had the most advanced tool they could ever ask for, the human brain.

  • lakhotason

    To be blunt, it isn't likely that the ancients had technology equal to or surpassing current technology. What is this thing that people ascribe to the ancients? Their average lifespan was about 25 years. How is that so wise?

  • Robyn318

    Ive seen number ranging from 24,700 to 26k.

  • Robyn318

    My take is that the same thing is going to happen that happened on 12/31/1999...nothing.

  • docoman

    What I personally find amazing in some of the ancient structures, monuments and artifacts, is the level of accuracy combined with the sheer size and weight. Have you seen Chris Dunn's stuff? Not his Giza power plant theory, but his commentary on the precision and accuracy of some of the Egyptian stonework, the many examples of tooling marks that can be found. Quite a few examples of things being too accurate to be done by hand or be mere chance, in materials that are extremely difficult to work with. And they were cutting, transporting, then very accurately placing huge stone blocks that today we still find very hard to do, some possibly impossible now. Some blocks weigh over 1k ton. Supposedly with only very simple tools, copper chisels, stone pounders, rope and wood.

    There can be a few possibilities of how they achieved some of those difficult things;
    - Maybe they were just very hard working, resourceful and clever people who did it with the simple tools at hand. Some things however are hard if not impossible to explain how with those tools.
    - Maybe they did have and know more then we currently give them credit for, and somewhere, somehow between then and now that knowledge/technology has been lost and forgotten, possibly eradicated or hidden on purpose.
    - Maybe they had outside help, which really must be either a deity, or ET's.

    There may be more possibilities that I haven't thought of or come across yet. If you know of others I would be interested to learn more.

    Out of those possible ways of actually doing some of the very difficult and very accurate achievements, to me, the second one seems the most plausible explanation, but the fact is I don't know. I could be very wrong.

  • lakhotason

    To listen to Chris Dunn and to give credence to what he says is to deny the absolute truth. Why could not humans, being the clever animals they are, build the pyramids? Why read or insert something cosmic into it? It is an insult to think the builders of the pyramids were anything less or more than human.

    They didn't know any more. They didn't posses any ancient knowledge unknown to us. They were human beings just as you and I are. I'm rather proud of that.

  • docoman

    With regards to Chris Dunn, I wasn't talking about his theories, I was talking about his observations from an Engineers point of view on the accuracy you can find, and the requirements to achieve that accuracy. He just says it on camera, so for some people who haven't seen, it is somewhere to have a look at it. A lot of the things I saw myself in Egypt, I had to ask how did they get it so correct, with stone that is so hard, with the tools they had. Not just close, but spot on with some of their statues and stonework. I was both awed and very proud to be human.
    Many of the explanations from Egyptologists just don't add up. The official position on some things is we actually don't know for sure how it was done. We just know it was, as we have the statue ect as evidence.
    Because it is here (be it Giza, statues ect), it was done at some stage, but we now don't know exactly how it was done, it is actually a fact that there is some knowledge that us humans once had, but have forgotten/lost. (assuming of course humans created them) How much knowledge is the question really.

  • docoman

    An analogy.

    Suppose you had a piece of paper, a pen and a compass. You draw a nice, perfect circle on your paper using your compass and pen. Then leave your paper on the bench, and go off with your pen and compass. Someone else comes along a bit later and sees your paper and a circle in ink. They've done high school geometry, and think, gee, that's a pretty good circle, I wonder how accurate it is. They measure it, and find it is pretty damn close to a perfect circle, and notice it is drawn in ink, on paper. This person, has heard about ink, knows it is a liquid that will dry on paper, but has never seen a pen. Their parents only ever gave them pencils and paper.
    Even with their limited knowledge, and having not seen the circle get drawn, there are a few things the person could logically surmise.
    As far as they know, no person can draw a perfect circle free-hand, so there must have been some sort of help if a person drew it. They've used a compass in their geometry class, so figure it must be something similar. They know ink is a liquid that will dry on paper, but not having seen a pen, figure out that because of it's accuracy, the thickness of the line, the nature of ink, there must have been some sort of 'ink delivery/application system' that was pretty accurate. And as they've never seen perfect circles just appear on paper, it must've been someone earlier with the right equipment and ability that drew the circle in ink, even though they don't know all of the details.

    As far as we know, no person can create stone statues to that degree of accuracy free-hand, in stone that is harder then steel, like you can find in Egypt. And the tools offered as the only tools available, just can't do the job. Add to that tooling marks that are unexplained yet similar to more modern equipment tooling marks, in some cases it seems better then we currently have, it would seem logical to me to surmise there were some tools and/or techniques that they used that we don't know they had.

    Some of the blocks they maneuvered around are so heavy, it's hard to see how they did it with only those tools. But we do know not only how difficult it is to move things that heavy, but also how hard it is to be so precise with the manufacture and fitting/placing of something like that. We can surmise that at the very least there were techniques used that we don't fully understand or know of.

    I'm not sure how they achieved what they did, but I think it is logical to deduce that there were probably tools, definitely techniques that had to be used to do it, that we just don't currently know about. The objects themselves are the evidence. It wouldn't surprise me if they themselves have hidden exactly how they did it. It was a trade secret. ('they' being earlier humans, nothing cosmic ect)

  • dewflirt

    Well now you're going to be hyper-dimensional, everywhere and nowhere baby ;)

  • dewflirt

    You foreigners, honestly! It's 31/12 not the other way round ;) they had a y2k show on tv here to report on all the disasters as they happened. Of course, nothing happened. Epic fail ;)

  • dewflirt

    The Ancients were smart, smart enough to build societies and survive and keep on inventing all the things they needed to build and develop all the things they wanted. They might not be giants, certainly not aliens, but we are standing on their shoulders :)

  • docoman

    Ahh, I didn't think of that. Kewl ;)

  • Robyn318

    Thanks, I learned something here.

  • ZonMann

    There is OVERWHELMING evidence to support ANCIENT alien theory. Its just that Blind unconscious ****** like yourself refuse to LOOK at the evidence.

  • ZonMann

    Sounds to me like indieisin here is either a seriously ignorant schmuck or just another common neo-cheater

  • docoman

    I just re-read your post where you say,
    "To listen to Chris Dunn and to give credence to what he says is to deny the absolute truth. Why could not humans, being the clever animals they are, build the pyramids? Why read or insert something cosmic into it? It is an insult to think the builders of the pyramids were anything less or more than human."

    From what I've seen of Chris Dunn the Engineer, I don't recall him saying anything other then humans built the pyramids. I may be wrong, I just don't recall hearing him say that. (No doubt I haven't seen everything he's done though) When he talks within his field of expertise, namely the accuracy there and the requirements to achieve that, and tooling marks that can be found, why is he not worthy of at least listening to and thinking about? Granted, he does have some theories like the Giza power plant that I would agree go beyond that, but that doesn't mean everything he says is therefore nonsense. I assume there would be other Engineers that would confirm his observations.
    I have a good friend who is a highly qualified Boiler Maker. He has many years experience actually building/constructing precision tools and equipment ect. I watched with him the part of Chris Dunn talking about the precision of some of the stonework, and the requirements to achieve that precision. Of course my friend works with metal and not stone, but precision is precision no matter the material. I asked his opinion on what Dunn says about it, and he agreed with him. You can't be that accurate by accident, and when it becomes extremely precise, the human hand alone can't do it. We use mechanical assistance. I concede a Boiler Maker is not an Engineer, but he has experience working with and producing precise equipment up to a very large scale.

  • Jack1952

    He says as he grits his teeth and the veins in his forehead begin to expand.

    Maybe a little more of your evidence and little less venom and we could have a reasonable discussion like adults and then maybe we could both learn something.....maybe.

  • docoman

    Az put up a link earlier, pointing to a Book by Robert K.G Temple, The Sirius Mystery. An interesting thought he mentions in the author's notes;
    "The trouble with trying to undertake a serious investigation about the possibility of extraterrestrial contact with Earth, is that a lot of sensible people will be put off by the very idea. Then again, a lot of the people who will enthusiastically receive my researches with open arms are the sort of people one least wants to be classed with."

    Sounds a little like ZonMann may well have open arms. :) Its a pity, I too would love to read and learn more of his overwhelming evidence.

  • lakhotason

    Chris Dunn is not an engineer.

  • Robyn318

    Now that we have looked at the evidential flaws of religion in general, lets look specifically at SOME of the evidential flaws of the ‘Religion of science’.

    When Science was a Discipline (not a religion), there were Universal Laws like Causation; First Law of Thermodynamics; second Law of thermodynamics; Newton’s laws of motion and the Law of Inertia that evolved over time from finely tuned observations and painstaking experimentation beginning when Copernicus who removed the earth from the center of the universe; to Einstein who showed among other things that mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

    But when Slipher saw a redshift (lengthening of light waves) from MOST spiral nebulae, these Laws were completely abandoned and a NEW religion was ‘born’. From that keen observation science priests from all over the scientific community, with extrapolation upon extrapolation upon extrapolation deduced that this ‘SIGN FROM THE HEAVENS’ meant that NONE of those laws had merit any more; that there are TWO gods now, the Judeo-Christian god of the theists and the newly created god of the Church of the Singularity.

    Both gods defy the laws of physics, according to the other god’s followers (each side claiming their god is the TRUE god and the other is nonsense). The theists say the causation that formed the Universe is from thought alone and speaking those thoughts created it; a concept not so absurd in the world of quantum mechanics. The Church of the Singularity says there is no causation for the big bang creation of the universe, it doesn’t need a cause; it’s a GOD, it exists beyond the realm of physics.

    The theist god says it ‘set’ the heavens satisfying the law of inertia; the science god has no acceptable answer regarding inertia; ‘inflation’ violates just a many Universal Laws as did the big bang.

    So you see Jack1952, it appears that man is genetically wired to believe in god, evidenced by the fact he had developed these wonderfully efficient set of laws that worked flawlessly, some for hundreds of years, and as soon as he is confronted with a phenomenon that he cannot ‘get his head around’, he automatically reverts back to his religious origins.

    So forgive me if I cannot take the word of either god at face value, I like to let the evidence speak for itself. You haven’t given me any evidence other than your god can beat up their god, religious gibberish i.e. ‘there is no evidence’.

    There is plenty of evidence that supports the ‘possibility’ that man was ‘visited’ and given specific knowledge that affected his development, but one has to let go of religious dogma and look at them with an educated mind, free of ilk based prejudice, a hard thing to do when looking from a religious mindset.

    We are not writing history books here, I am trying to have an intelligent discussion about a debated and disputed topic; to do so, one has to put the religious jargon aside and assess the proposed evidence one piece at a time. The Mayans were off by 14 years on a 2000 year old prediction, supposedly without the aid of telescopes, modern mathematics or computers, so what; that is still an astounding feat for people who formed their first villages 200 years earlier. The U.S. was off by thousands of miles sending the first probe to Saturn (a Km to mile conversion mistake) using some of the most sophisticated technology of the 20th century…and that was 3,000 years after they formed their first villages…sh*t happens. The only place where perfection is attained is in religious text; I’ve seen, read and analyzed enough of that; Im interested in Science now, not religion.

    If you are the guy who knows everything this universe has to offer…you are the guy I want to talk to. Personally I live by the saying, “it is what you learn after you know everything that really counts” . ARE YOU GAME FOR THE DISCUSSION?

  • lakhotason

    Please tell me who has abandoned those laws which you say were abandoned.

  • Robyn318

    Using the laws of physics explain to me how the big bang is possible.

  • lakhotason

    There were no laws of physics til AFTER the Big Bang therefore the Big Bang cannot be explained by the laws of physics.

  • lakhotason

    Michelangelo didn't create statues freehand? Nor did the Greeks or Romans? Symmetry is not that hard to produce.

    Speaking of the Greeks, have you ever read how the Parthenon was built? Now that was a piece of engineering. It had to be built "inexact" to make it appear to be exact, something the Egyptians had no concept of. And the Greeks had no special or unknown techniques. In fact they used the same tools as the Egyptians probably used.

    As for moving enormous weight around, the Egyptians had unlimited manpower and more importantly had an unlimited source of beasts of burden. They did have the horse you understand.

  • lakhotason

    Wait a minute now. The pyramids are built of limestone which is fairly soft as stone goes. The Greeks and Romans built with marble which is "hard" as stone goes. And they used pretty much the same tools as the Egyptians and their degree of accuracy at least matched the Egyptians if not surpassed it.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Robyn318:

    Religion of science?? did not know that there was such a thing, who is the god of the religion of science then, maybe Stephen Hawking, he is the one that says the universe came from absolutely nothing, maybe he thought it and there it was. Makes sense to me.

    Genetically wired to believe in gods?? not me, am genetically un-wired to believe in any gods.

    Am also more than curious for your empirical proof/evidence of what laws, and who offered proof that the specific laws of which you speak were abandoned.

  • lakhotason

    Exactly. I don't understand where those laws were abandoned. Though I'm inclined to agree that humans are "genetically wired" to have some sort of belief in the supernatural. The question is what evolutionary advantage that "wiring" would give us.

  • dewflirt

    Who knows what might have been lurking on the other side of the fire at the entrance of a cave.

  • lakhotason

    Well from the movies I saw in my youth it was Raquel Welch! But seriously I often wonder why humans are so predisposed to the supernatural. What is it in our evolution that made us that way?

  • Robyn318

    There are ALWAYS laws of physics when some action is done. If you make a balloon, you do so using the laws of physics governing latex. If you want to build a car that goes 200 mph, you build it using the physics governing the propulsion and motion of automobiles. If you want to build a universe you use the laws governing the laws of the universe. CAUSE and EFFECT for one.

  • Robyn318

    @Achems
    The law of cause and effect says: "The law of “Cause and Effect”, sometimes referred to as “Causation”, is an immutable Universal law, encompassing the principle that nothing in the Universe can ever happen by chance. For everything that happens, in other words for every effect, there is always a corresponding cause preceding it without exception."

    So if the big bang is Science what was the "corresponding cause preceding it" This is a simple physics question to prove you are dealing with science not religion.

    Will get back later Im going 4 wheeling

  • lakhotason

    No. you are wrong there. Natural laws came about only after the Big Bang, just as you could not build a 200 mph car until the car came about first. You are confusing cause and effect. The cause is unknown but the effect is certainly apparent.

  • lakhotason

    But you have to understand one thing. There is no cause and effect until AFTER the Big Bang. I know it's hard to get your head around that and it's hard for me too.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Robyn318:

    It seems that you are heading into the cosmological argument, what was the first cause? Does the universe need a first cause? be straight with us, are you a proponent of ID or creationism or something of that ilk?

  • Robyn318

    There is no cosmological argument on this end, only pure science using the laws of physics. You say there were no laws before the big bang, so it happened by ‘magic’; right?

  • Achems_Razor

    There is an evolutionary advantage to be genetically wired, pertaining to the cave man days, kept the flock together, offered some sort of empathy with others, know a-days is called the god chip in the brain, a lot of people have it, thankfully I do not, there is a doc on that here, forget the name.

  • Robyn318

    You say something happened to cause the bang, it wasn’t the laws of physics because they didn’t exist yet and if it wasn’t god or magic what caused it?

  • Achems_Razor

    I did not say there were no laws, and I did not say it happened by magic, if you want to talk, do not attempt to put words in my, or anybodies mouth.

  • Robyn318

    Im asking you a valid scientific question: What cause the big bang?

  • lakhotason

    But yet it's different from the tribal because it is also an individual tendency. I'm certainly not arguing because I really do not understand it in any way. Is it the same as tribal or is it a thing unto itself?

  • Achems_Razor

    You brought all that up, so you tell me!

  • Robyn318

    Of course there is cause and effect before the big bang. Something had to exist for eternity before it exploded. What was it that caused the time to be 15 billion years ago, and not 14B or 16B.

  • Robyn318

    If you didnt say there were no laws then what were those laws?

  • Achems_Razor

    Tribal, but ended up being religion I suppose by the mass hallucinations of the religee's.

  • over the edge

    @Robyn318
    you ask what caused the big bang? the best answer is nobody knows. sorry if that isn't sufficient but that is the best answer. now a question for you. why do you ask? please be honest was it just a question or do you have an ulterior motive for asking? we don't know (yet) is a perfectly acceptable answer when there is not enough evidence. the problem lies when an explanation is given without anything to back it up

  • lakhotason

    You can't say there was cause and effect before the Big Bang. No one can say that.

  • Robyn318

    I dont want to be accused of putting words in your mouth again, but it appears to me that you dont know, is that correct?

  • Achems_Razor

    How do you know there is cause and effect before the BB?
    How do you know there is such a thing as eternity?
    How do you know that something had to exist for eternity?
    And how do you know anything exploded, was there someone to hear that? Could of been a big whimper.

  • Achems_Razor

    All you are doing is answering questions with questions, again since you have brought this up first, the onus is on you to give us your answer! No ifs and no buts. Let us hear it!
    Am waiting.

  • Robyn318

    I think the scientific evidence indicates that time and space (the universe) always existed. Personally I dont think it is an acceptable explanation if you dont have an answer yet. My point is how can you justify saying emphatically that god didnt create it when you dont know whether it is possible or not. That is the same as not accepting a theists explanation that god created the universe but doesnt know how he did it yet. How is that stance okay for you but not for someone else? That is my point.

  • over the edge

    @Robyn318
    i don't think i ever said that god didn't create it. as far as i remember all i ever said about god is that there is no credible evidence and if i am expected to believe something there should be some evidence. science has provided many real tangible ,repeatable and testable explanations for how the natural world functions and came to be as we see it today. and when mistakes were made they were corrected. religion has denied the truth or worse tried to hide it. so forgive me but sciences track record is far superior to religions. so if (a big if) all things were equal i will put more stock in the field that has the better record.

  • Achems_Razor

    Which gods are you talking about?? I suppose the Christian god right? You are not doing the Pascals wager thing are you? you have about 28,000,000 more to go.

  • lakhotason

    I don't think science indicates that time and space always existed. I've read no science that has stated that.

    That we do not have an answer is certainly true and science freely and forcefully admits we don't have "the" answer. But what science does have is evidence. Hard to argue with evidence.

  • Robyn318

    "How do you know there is cause and effect before the BB?" If an event happened, it had to have been initiated by something or else it would remain in the same inert state.

    "How do you know that something had to exist for eternity?"
    Now dont you go putting words in my mouth! I said the evidence appears to be that it always existed, eternity is your word not mine.

    "How do you know that something had to exist for eternity?"
    Again eternity is your word not mine.

    "And how do you know anything exploded, was there someone to hear that? Could of been a big whimper."
    Im not saying anything exploded, the bang is your theory not mine.

    I answered your questions in a scientific manner so please do me the same courtesy and answer two of mine. The first is: It appears you do not know what caused the BB, is that correct?

  • Achems_Razor

    @Robyn318:

    It is apparent that you are just trolling, you have not given credence to any of your claims, no proof, peer reviewed or otherwise.

    So will cease replying to you.

  • Robyn318

    First I want to thank you for having a civil scientific discussion with me on this. I enjoy these discussions, it makes me question what I think and what I believe and I learn a lot in doing so.

    Absolutely no argument about religion; as I have said earlier I think it is a necessary but dreadful precursor to gaining knowledge.

  • lakhotason

    Show us the science. You can see mine - show me yours. Don't sit there and say "How do you know this and how do you know that". That's not an argument. I mean how do you "know" that I'm not God talking to you through the internet? What kind of crap is that.

    You got some science let me see it.

  • Robyn318

    "Hard to argue with evidence."
    I am asking for this hard to argue with evidence.

  • Robyn318

    If it always existed, the cause and effect problem is answered as is inertia, the formation of solar systems, stars and galaxies. It doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics; and the red shift can be caused by some cyclical motion of the outer edges. There is no need for extrapolation into multi-verses and string theories. The Universal Laws of physics work perfectly fine.

  • lakhotason

    Tell me what you want to see, I'll direct you right to it.

  • lakhotason

    What red shift are you talking about? You keep saying "red shift". Direct me to the science you keep talking about.

  • Robyn318

    Are you kidding me? This is exactly why I say modern science is a religion. You believe and argue about something that you know nothing about. The only way to learn is by research.

  • lakhotason

    How does that answer my question about this "red shift"? You going to show me something or not.

  • lakhotason

    Here's the problem Robyn318, I do not dismiss anything out of hand simply because no rational person does that. That doesn't mean I need entertain the idea.

    You are probably more skeptical about a commercial you see on TV because you require evidence for a claim. You really want to know if that toilet paper is as soft as claimed. I'm not being facetious it's just that I do the same thing and I know.

    Why ponder the Universe with less standard than you ponder toilet paper? Asking for evidence is not a religion unless you would consider toilet paper a religion.

  • Guest

    It is unfortunate that a conversation that could have turned out interesting for all to read is turned into a mockery. Robyn, i think the way you approached the subject didn't contain enough if, may be, perhaps, what if, it is possible...ect. I think you have to be careful when you (try to) encourage a discussion and that it is important that you state of the uncertainty of your claims otherwise people will take you seriously wrong. I see some of your points because i share a curiosity for such anwers.
    If you doubt the big bang theory, then you will be accused of believing in GOD, you know that GOD every one thinks about when they say GOD even though they say they don't believe in GOD. I don't believe in any GOD i ever read or heard about, i only believe in the one i am slowly inventing in my mind and it has nothing to do with the other 20,000 or so.
    Over the edge wrote: "you ask what caused the big bang? the best answer is nobody knows." and that's possibly the best answer to your many questions.
    At this point every one is at lost as to what exactly is this universe, if there are many, what came before, was there a before, is this reality really there? All ideas may be right in some dimension somewhere or some nowhere.
    If you want respect and decent answer here...make sure you state that you don't believe in God and then pretend you have no opinion and be prepared to read a bunch of rechewed text from some science book somewhere.
    Don't be original, you will sound stupid.
    az

  • Robyn318

    I want to see how the Universal Laws of physics can be used to show the BB is even possible.

  • Robyn318

    The 'Redshift' is an indication that that waves lengths are lengthening (getting longer). This is the HOLY GRAIL of the Big Bang theory.

  • Robyn318

    You are right, I usually get quite a laugh out of most commercials.

    I think I figured out the problem here; we need to have an agreed upon definition of the word “science” and the word “religion”. I’ll go first with my definition of each:

    Definition of Science:
    Systematic study of Nature, based upon the presumption that the Universe is based upon rationally intelligible principles and that its behavior can therefore be predicted by subjecting observational data to logical analysis.

    Definition of Religion: A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world.

    So to me Science is based on established ‘intelligible’ principles, evidence or comparative similarity (as in defining a species).

    And Religion is faith based, having no tangible evidence or principle or comparative similarity.

    Now if your definition of either word is different please add your input so we can agree on their meanings and continue on. And if you agree with my definitions let me know that you agree.

  • Robyn318

    Unfortunately I have to choose my words very carefully, because if I do not I am automatically typecast a 'religee". It seems any idea that goes against the grain here is religious in origin and that is unfortunate, because that mindset makes it really hard to introduce new concepts. If people are willing to engage me on a scientific level I think you will (might) find it will get interesting. When I have to be so careful of the meaning of every word I use (that it doesnt have a religious connotation also) it takes a little time to get an idea across. Thank you for your input.

  • over the edge

    @Robyn318
    i thought you had a religious angle to your pots and if i was wrong than i apologize. that being said there is lots of evidence for the big bang although not direct. the red shift you mentioned would be there as well as the background radiation if the big bang happened. there is also the age and speed that the universe is expanding (please look up "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory") i fail to see how "red shift can be caused by some cyclical motion of the outer edges." could you explain further? maybe i don't fully understand what you mean by "edges" . remember that for the big bang to be right it in no way has to explain what happened before the bang occurred any more than evolution has to explain how life started to be right not that i wish to go off on that tangent here only an example

  • Robyn318

    Thanks I will check that out. We don’t know what our universe looks like from the outside; it could be a big bubble and the redshift is from an expansion of the edges which could also be the cause of the background radiation.

    But the idea that I think might be the correct one is this:
    We saw that much of physical matter is made of fractal patterns that repeat themselves over and over, with each successively higher magnification with which they are examined. And that atoms are made of a core nucleus with electrons circling it. And the solar system is made of the same pattern with the sun being the core and the planets circling it. And galaxies are made with that same pattern with the black hole being its core and the stars circling it, slowly being drawn away from the center. So it may be that the universe has that same pattern spinning around an as of yet unknown core which would cause the galaxies of our universe to be drawn away form the center. This is a “possible” explanation for redshift and background radiation.

  • over the edge

    @Robyn318
    first off an admission and a disclaimer. we are bumping up against the edges of my knowledge on this subject. but if the universe is "spinning around an as of yet unknown core"and causing galaxies to be"drawn away form the center." wouldn't logic say that if we reverse this expansion going back a single point would have to exist at some time in the past?

  • Robyn318

    @over the edge
    That is one possibility and another is that there may be yet another system beyond that; just as the solar system incorporates the atom and the galaxy incorporates the solar system. There is observable science to show that there seems to be repeatable patterns of reality on both sides of our reality; what would be the reason to discard that continuing pattern?

  • lakhotason

    Yeah right. Just make stuff up. Why have evidence for anything.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lee-Walker/512170729 Lee Walker

    Google Edwin Hubble (as in the Hubble space telescope) he was the man that discovered that not only is the universe expanding but it is accelerating away from us in all directions meaning not only that at some point everything existed at a single point (the BB theory) but that we live in a unique point in time where we can observe the universe. as it accelerates apart, light travelling to earth and being observed will stretch farther and farther into the red end of the spectrum (red shift) until eventualy it will be undetectable by the naked eye leaving us with no stars in the night sky.
    It also poses the idea that the big bang is still hapening right now. if you think of any terestrial explosion it isnt over until the debris has settled. If everything is still moving away from the point of origin then that means the big bang has not ended yet.

  • Jack1952

    He who yells loudest wins the debate. Decibels trump evidence every time.

  • Jack1952

    The red shift phenomena was just the beginning as far as the deduction of the big bang was concerned. One could deduce that the universe was in an expanding phase, like breathing, and that the universe is basically static, but there were those who explored other options as the answer to this expansion. One of these options came to be known as the big bang. A model was created which reduced the universe into a singularity. However, any model of that singularity suggests that the laws of physic break down. Models of the universe immediately following the big bang have left evidence of the existence of that point in time and the big bang is a well tested theory and is the model which answers many of the cosmological questions. What caused the big bang is unknown but it is not magic. The singularity seems to operate under a system of laws that we do not understand. It is illogical to say that the big bang could not have happened because we do not understand why it happened. The universe is filled with phenomena that we do not understand. Evidence points to the big bang as the model which seems to answer the major questions concerning cosmology. Unless another model is introduced that can answer these questions it will prevail as the accepted beginning of the universe. It is not religious dogma that decides this. If a model does emerge that has a scientific background which is more accurate than the big bang then it will become the accepted model. Until then....

    I am the wrong person to ask if one wants to have an in depth understanding of cosmology. I have read a great deal about it but my knowledge is only an overview. It would take years of study to properly understand how scientists arrived at the big bang theory. To expect one to prove it on a forum such as the one we are engaged in is unrealistic and impossible. That does not mean that you are correct in your assertions. It does mean that you have a lot of work to do if your goal is to show that the big bang is not the model we should be looking at.

    The classic period of the Mayans lasted from 250-900 AD. Their history runs further back in time then that. That is centuries in which their priesthood could observe and chart the movement of the stars. A course could be drawn for individual star systems based on its past positions and then extending that course into future positions. If they were out 14 years in their calendar it is a testament to their diligence and the accuracy of their charts given the tools available to them. If their priesthood claim that this knowledge was given to them by visitors from the heavens we cannot automatically assume alien visitation. It could also be the way they would prove to their followers how they were the legitimate representatives of their gods. I have demonstrated how modern religion does this. Explain to me why Mayan religion is somehow different.

  • Robyn318

    My goal is not to ‘prove’ anything…we are not rewriting science books here. We are on a forum to discuss ideas and thoughts and possibly through that conversation we can expand our personal knowledge on a subject or two. For instance with the psychopath video having that discussion got me to realize that my older brother did not have superior genetics, a thought I lived under the negative influence of for more than 40 years; it was liberating to finally find out the truth.

    So fine we’ll step past the trigger mechanism for the BB. At the instant the BB occurred all of the laws of physics come into play; is that correct?

  • docoman

    Lol. I wasn't finished. One of my replies either disappeared or was taken off by a moderator. I realized that topic was probably better discussed in a different documentary. And there was the current conversation going on that was on topic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1613995208 Michael Haze

    awesome! apart from the "somE sAy..."/alien part
    dont get me wrong i like it and get it but it was too long...
    wouldve liked some more hubble or kepler material

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    I often wonder how many of you who speak of models have ever actually examined one, as opposed to simply "taking it on faith".

  • Robyn318

    It is called "Science Fiction" and has a MASSIVE 'cult' following.

  • Robyn318

    "Am also more than curious for your empirical proof/evidence of what laws, and who offered proof that the specific laws of which you speak were abandoned."

    Engage me in a "SCIENTIFIC" conversation and we will uncover my "emperical proof/evidence" and we will uncover your "emperical proof/evidence" as well.

  • Robyn318

    @Jack1952
    “One could deduce that the universe was in an expanding phase, like breathing, and that the universe is basically static…”

    The universe is anything but static; stars appear to be born and end their life as stars and take on different identities, asteroids and comets slam into planets and other asteroids on a regular basis setting into motion a chain of events that alter the universe in seemingly random yet continual occurrences. In the swirling motion of the observable galaxies, stars and solar systems enter the same space-time coordinate and engage in a dance of life and death very similar to the dances performed by caribou in rut.

    Stasis is not a condition witnessed in the observable universe; Mars is thought to have had the necessary conditions to support life in the past, that something changed those conditions and now it appears not to. Man’s effort is to eventually colonize Mars, changing the current conditions once again: That is not stasis!

  • Jack1952

    What I meant was that the general size of the universe was static. I didn't mean to say that the inner workings of the universe never changed.

  • Jack1952

    This is why I am reluctant to engage in discussion with you. You have an obvious contempt for those who are involved in what could be called mainstream science. You have some interesting ideas but you will not accept that they are only ideas. You claim that you want a discussion in science but any science that contradicts your viewpoint is dismissed as the propaganda of the cult of science.

    To answer your question, yes, the physical laws of science as we know them came into being after the big bang. How they existed before this or if they even existed, or if there were physical laws in the singularity that are not yet observable that affected how these laws, as we know them, behaved before and after the big bang. As far as science knows the laws of science formed into their current state after the big bang.

  • Jack1952

    To understand those models fully would take years of study. I must acquiesce to those who have a lifetime of study and investigation and who subscribe to a standard methodology of investigation. I do not have the tools at my disposal to do otherwise.

    As an example, if I buy an airline ticket to take me half around the world, I do not take a crash (sorry) course in plane maintenance and navigation. I do not spend hours in a flight simulator because I do not believe that there is no such thing as an expert and I must be ready at the first sign of incompetence. I accept that all those involved in my upcoming flight have been properly trained and have the experience to get me to my destination. It is impossible for me to know everything there is to know. I leave it to those who make it their life's work and who also observe stringent standards in their chosen field. The world it too complex for me to do otherwise.

  • Robyn318

    @Jack1952 you said:

    “This is why I am reluctant to engage in discussion with you. You have an obvious contempt for those who are involved in what could be called mainstream science.”

    And my answer is you are right I do have contempt for people who take science fiction and foist it as Science.

    “You have some interesting ideas but you will not accept that they are only ideas.”

    And of course your ‘ideas’ are facts. Guess what when two people really believe in their ideas, it often makes for a good discussion. I am contending that in the course of our discussion, providing it is based on ‘good science” (not science fiction or faith), that I will not only show that there is no substance (regarding the laws of physics) to the BB idea, but that it is a religion with nothing but faith and a desire to rid the world of the grip that Judeo-Christian philosophy has had on it. . That is how strongly I feel about my stance. If the capital letters offend you, I’ll use “ “ for words I want extra emphasis on.

    And for the record I said: “That is one possibility and another is that there “””””may””””” be yet another system beyond that; just as the solar system incorporates the atom and the galaxy incorporates the solar system.”

    “You” are the one saying your ideas are “a well tested theory”, here are your words.

    “Models of the universe immediately following the big bang have left evidence of the existence of that point in time and the big bang is a well tested theory and is the model which answers many of the cosmological questions.”

    How about you start this discussion with some “scientific facts”, starting 1/millionth of a second after the BB when the laws of physics come into play. Start with the ‘well tested’ facts that show how a primordial point (about the size of an atom’s nucleus) can create the universe we see today.

  • Robyn318

    We havent seen the outer edge of the universe yet, how can anyone make a statement about its size. Maybe in the course of our discussion we can gain some common ground and start to venture a 'guess' as to what it might be. That is what I am hoping for.

  • Robyn318

    I thought about my response and I must apologize for my lack of clarity on one point and that is that I do not have contempt for you, Ockams,or lakotason or anyone else on this site or anywhere else that has been forced to accept this pseudo-science as fact. My contempt is for Hubble and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other high priests of the pseudo science movement who have taken valid observations from 'Real' Scientists like Slipher and Darwin and used it for personal gain and fame by turning it into a science fiction cult. Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity…sorry about that.

    My next post will give my ‘evidence’ using the laws of physics to show that the BB is impossible.

  • Robyn318

    According to the Big Bang once the trigger mechanism has been initiated all of the forces of nature; gravity, weak atomic force, strong atomic force and the electromagnetic forces were released, being sent out instantly into the vast pre-universe void. And those elements that were not part of the four fundamental forces coalesced into stars, planets and asteroids forming the billions and billions of galaxies that make up our universe.

    This idea is fantastic for science fiction but has no basis in fact.

    Let us look at the First Law of Thermodynamics:

    It states that the total amount of energy in an “isolated system” remains constant over time, and that it can change forms from mass to potential energy or to kinetic energy or to chemical energy or to heat or light and back again; but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

    This means that if you have 10 grams of mass at the instant of the big bang and 1 gram is changed into electromagnetic force, 1 gram into gravity, 1gram into the weak force and 1 gram into the strong force; you have only enough potential energy left to produce 6 grams of mass (in absolute perfect conditions).

    Lets look at Einstein’s famous equation E=M (CxC) or The amount of energy produced by breaking the strong force holding a nucleus together is equal to the total mass times the speed of light squared. It is an almost incomprehensible amount of energy produced by a relatively small amount of mass. Go on-line and look at some of the devastation produced by the energy of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    Now lets look at Einstein’s equation to see how much mass can be formed by the energy left over after the four fundamental forces have been ‘created’.

    M = E / (CxC) or the amount of mass that can be produced is equal to the available Energy divided by the speed of light squared. This means it would take the same amount of energy that devastated those Japanese cities just to product the couple pounds of mass contained in the bomb(s).

    After the creation of the four fundamental forces there is less energy available to be reconverted to mass, meaning it is impossible to end up with the original 10 grams in our example. So if it impossible to retrieve the original mass of the ‘primordial point’, it is just as impossible to produce the billions and billion of galaxies that make up our universe from the diminished available energy of the big bang.

    I am not saying this with any contempt: I showed how the big bang cannot be the source of the universe using ‘Real Science’ what I call the Discipline of Science, not science fiction. Now please debunk my assertions with the same ‘Real Science’.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Robyn318:

    You have not shown one iota of real science, you have not used any real science, all you have said is basically because I have told you so. Means we have to take your word for it?

    Real science? show us your peer reviewed published papers with the math, before you try and refute the real scientists!

  • Robyn318

    I have used the “Laws” of science to show that it is physically impossible for the bb to account for our universe. The same can be done with Inertia.

    Religion objects to the ‘person’.

    Science objects to the ‘ideas’.

    Show me some Science to the contrary.

  • Robyn318

    This is a very nice science fiction story: where is the science to back it up!

    “During this creation and annihilation of particles the universe was undergoing a rate of expansion many times the speed of light. Known as the inflationary epoch, the universe in less than one thousandth of a second doubled in size at least one hundred times, from an atomic nucleus to 1035 meters in width. An isotropic inflation of our Universe ends at 10-35 second that was almost perfectly smooth. If it were not for a slight fluctuation in the density distribution of matter, theorists contend, galaxies would have been unable to form (Parker).”

    This is speculation…where is the science. Einstein showed and it is universally accepted that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. As matter gets closer to the speed of light it gains density, slowing it down so it will never attain light speed.

    Show me the Science that illustrates matter can travel faster that the speed of light!!!!

    Until you do this is science fiction hoopla.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Robyn318:

    This will be my last post to you until you learn how to read and assimilate what you read, matter "cannot" go faster than the speed of C. it is the space itself that was expanding many times faster than the speed of C at inflation!

    When you actually learn something, call me back in a few years!

  • Guest

    Come on, you can't engage only with people who agree. It is in polite conversation like this one that us little uninformed people learn. What is there to learn from an exchange between you and _______, if all you talk about is "peer reviewed and published scientists" jargon carbon copied stuff.
    We might as well quit TDF and go sit in a library for the next 15 years.
    I and many are here to read and occasionnaly put in words our thoughts about science as immature as they may sound. That's how you create and entertain curiosity and interest. You wouldn't prefer us to be talking about religion, would you?
    Last post, you barely started.
    az

  • Achems_Razor

    Az...Absolutely, I myself put in many posts that are thought experiments only, Neil Bors, Schrodinger's (Cat), Einstein and many others have also done that, nothing wrong with that, but when someone puts stuff in that they say is "pure science" without proof, that is something that I take umbrage to.

    You yourself put in a lot of thought experiments about science, but you never say it is pure science, am I right? again nothing wrong about that.

  • Robyn318

    And I am asking you to show me the "Science" that space can expand faster that the speed of light! ""If"" that was even possible it would require even more energy than my previous example, leaving less available energy to be converted back to mass.

    The bb creates a paradox, how can you end up with more energy than you started with?

    I have used the Laws of Science to show that my view is valid...show me how the same Laws make your views valid.

  • Achems_Razor

    You have shown me nothing, the laws of science?? how old are you? you sound like a kid.

    Heaven forbid, more kids??

  • Robyn318

    "when someone puts stuff in that they say is "pure science" without proof"

    I have used the ""accepted"" Laws of Science to show my view with each step...so far you are unwilling to do the same. Why?

    I say as I stated before, it is because modern science is a religion based on "Faith"

    Faith that someday it will be known how the primordial point exploded

    Faith that someday it will be known how space expanded without using the available energy

    Faith that it will someday be known how the universe was created out of single point the size of an atom's nucleus

    Faith that it will someday be known how the bb defies “all” of the laws of physics

    The same Faith the theists have that god will return and vindicate them also.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    actually science admits what it doesnt know and keeps looking.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    sounds like someone hasnt taken a quantum physics or astronomy course in university....

  • Guest

    My science bits are not pure white, they're kind of a beigy cream interlaced with many transparent holes. Milky way of thoughts i gather around and inside of me and from what i read.
    az

  • Guest

    I have asked you many times to tell me what is a real scientist and i'm still waiting?
    az

  • Guest

    by pure science you mean? fundamental science? approved science? published science? applied science? personal deductions?
    You got to be careful what word you use and how you use them.
    I thought i told you that last week.
    lol
    az

  • Guest

    if that was the pre-requisites to posting on TDF, the science docs wouldn't have many comments.
    az

  • Guest

    Science Definition states that, but people who are strongly interested in science tend to forget that. They follow what comes out of research from top scientists and take it for granted. It's always been like that even though many science theories have be debunked. Let's blame the past.
    az

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    if i felt that posting those explanations in my own words would actually garner any attention from someone who seems to have already closed the doors on science, i would have.

    but i figured it would be a waste of my time so i did the next best and quickest thing. got people who actually study it for a living to explain it.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    but remember that science was also new in the past. when things are new they are bound to get a bunch of stuff wrong.

    and science by its very nature is self correcting so we had to wait a couple hundred years to get all the glitches out. but as we go forward we see less and less theories being thrown out, and instead the theories are just being made more clear.

  • Guest

    Is it possible that research money is going to a few who are in line with what has been researched and agreed so far?
    As for exemple, who gets time slots in major observatory centers? How easily can a scientist lose the funds to continue research if he/she steps out of boundaries?
    If the science field is to advance the military or the Nasa research, millions of $$ are allocated, but when it is to understand different hypothesis of cosmology and astronomy or paranormal activities of the mind, the budget is cut down to a few.
    Science that can benefit the physical world advances very fast, science that can advance the understanding of the unknown non-physical world is a ring with very few sponsored skaters.
    az

  • docoman

    I think one example is Nicola Tesla and his wireless energy experiments. When his benefactor, I think it was J.P Morgan, found out Tesla wanted to give electricity away, meaning he wouldn't be able to make money from it, he pulled the funding. Much to our misfortune now, if Nic could have got it to work. :(
    Even some 'physical world' advances are held back.

  • Achems_Razor

    What is a real scientist? it is the same as what is a real human?

  • Guest

    I don't get it. A real human is every person. So are you saying every person is a real scientist?
    az

  • Achems_Razor

    Absolutely!! Depends how far they want to go with that?

    Science is everywhere, even non-humans like chimps can learn to use tools, how to break nuts with rocks, and that is science!

  • Guest

    I'll make sure i copy this for future reference. I love it!
    Now let's see who agrees with this.
    az

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "Is it possible that research money is going to a few who are in line with what has been researched and agreed so far?"

    yes it is possible and it does happen. but there will always be groups and universities out there who show those studies to be false.

    " but when it is to understand different hypothesis of cosmology and astronomy or paranormal activities of the mind, the budget is cut down to a few."

    astronomy and cosomology gets the back burner on the funds because the people with the majority of funds are more interested in military findings.

    however the paranormal activities of the mind have been studied by those groups for military purposes. millions and millions spent. they found nothing. that is why we dont study it any more. but if ANYONE can present a testable hypothesis about anything paranormal someone will test it, and if it is proven James Randi will give out a million dollars.

    "Science that can benefit the physical world advances very fast, science that can advance the understanding of the unknown non-physical world is a ring with very few sponsored skaters."

    how do you study or experiment what you are talking about, this "unknown non-physical world"?

  • Robyn318

    That "pure science" gibberish was Achems post that i quoted.

    Here is his quote from 9 hours ago as of this post:
    Az...Absolutely, I myself put in many posts that are thought experiments only, Neil Bors, Schrodinger's (Cat), Einstein and many others have also done that, nothing wrong with that, but when someone puts stuff in that they say is "pure science" without proof, that is something that I take umbrage to.

    This is why I like the Capital letters...there is no confusion

  • Robyn318

    And that is what (S)cience is suppose to do.

    There is not one thing about the bb "theory" that is based on fact...it is all speculation. It takes a valid observation and assigns a 'religious' connotation to it. For example when Hubble saw the 'redshift' he automatically assigned to that observation that there was a 'Creator"' of the universe; the primordial point. In Science all that observation should deduce is that the galaxies seem to be moving away from each other. Our universe could be in free fall mode, that 'could' also explain the same motion.

  • Guest

    Although i am far from your caliber in science, very very far, i have noticed that your links are from 2002/2003 and it tells me that people's opinion may have changed since then. 10yrs, so much has been discovered since then, new theories or hypothesis have come forward, knowledge is growing rapidly. Any possiblility that these anwers would have been reviewed with new adjustment?

    az

  • Guest

    One of the ladies in Epi's linked site, her name is Karen Masters, has published a paper in 2010 called: "Galaxy Zoo: passive red spirals", it's more recent. May be you can find something of use in it.
    az.

  • Guest

    I see you have used "real science" not "pure science" and as Achems stated, we are all real scientists therefore your science is real. Doesn't make it right but it could be. You don't have to prove it according to science, others have to disprove it because science should never be said to be proven without a doubt but it can be disproven...is that right boys?
    az
    wink wink Achems, didn't take me long! lolol

  • Guest

    By stepping over the illusion for very very brief moment.
    az

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    what does that mean?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    not when it comes to the fundamental basics of the big bang. not at all.

    the age, the expansion speed, the redshift, the background radiation. all the things that cement it as the leading theory. those have not changed.

  • docoman

    Do you, or anyone else reading this, know what the most recent thinking is with regards to Redshift Quantization? I can't find anything recent indicating properly one way or the other if it actually exists. From what I've read so far, there seems to be a fair debate still even if there is some quantization effect observed or not.

  • docoman

    Have you watched another recent doc. 'The Poetry of Science'. I think it was Tyson on there that says something along the lines of,
    we all, from an early age, when tipping water out of a bucket or jumping in a puddle ect, are actually conducting a series of science experiments to help us come to an understanding of how the world around us works.
    We are all born little scientists. :)

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "On the surface this is good science! There is no friction is space so what would cause the acceleration to go from many times the speed of light (inflation)to 100Km/sec?"

    there is SOME friction in space. it is not a complete vacuum.

    "If you want me to accept your side of this conversation, explain to me how both of these statements can be “true” at the same time."

    space is not a round area that is expanding within some other area.

    the galaxies are all moving away from one another. just like the article said: The universe is not a collection of galaxies sitting in space, all moving away from a central point. Instead, a more appropriate analogy is to think of the universe as a giant blob of dough with raisins spread throughout it (the raisins represent galaxies; the dough represents space). When the dough is placed in an oven, it begins to expand, or, more accurately, to stretch, keeping the same proportions as it had before but with all the distances between galaxies getting bigger as time goes on.

    "I will not accept science fiction hoopla;"

    sorry, the astronomer professors and physics professors are Cornell University must just be idiots. thank goodness we have someone of your great intellect to correct them.

    seriously. your arguments all rest on "Einstein said...." sounds like a few thousand years ago when people would say "Aristotle said...."

    funny, why didnt you address any of the mathematical equations in the article?

    v = Hod
    where v is the speed at which a galaxy moves away from us, and d is its distance. The constant of proportionality Ho is now called the Hubble constant. The common unit of velocity used to measure the speed of a galaxy is km/sec, while the most common unit of for measuring the distance to nearby galaxies is called the Megaparsec (Mpc) which is equal to 3.26 million light years or 30,800,000,000,000,000,000 km! Thus the units of the Hubble constant are (km/sec)/Mpc.

    learn to math.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i actually dont know about that. sorry man. im intrigued now though.

  • Achems_Razor

    Yes, I have known about redshift quantization, still ongoing, but in 2006 a review by "Bajan et al" concluded that redshift among galaxies is not well established.

  • Achems_Razor

    Well Yeah, but don't go and jump out of an airplane without a parachute just because you are convinced the laws of gravity are old wives tales.

  • Guest

    "space is not a round area that is expanding within some other area."
    Space is infinite in all directions?

    "Instead, a more appropriate analogy is to think of the universe as a giant blob of dough with raisins spread throughout".
    And a universe is a round (ball of dough) within an infinite space?

    az

  • Guest

    what if i jumped out of a space ship?
    az

  • dewflirt

    That's the 'current' theory ;)

  • ProudinUS

    Now that would be some funny s**t!.....Go ahead, I'll catch ya.

  • Achems_Razor

    If you jumped out of a spaceship and were not wearing a pressurized space suit you would explode and your blood and guts would be travelling in space forever and ever at 3 degrees above absolute "0" kelvin, which is minus-454.77 degrees Fahrenheit.

  • Guest

    Do you mean my body would do a Big Bang? Why would i explode? Wouldn't i just stay the same and just float dead for ever? well not for ever but until consumed.
    az

  • Achems_Razor

    You would not quite explode, but you would lose consciousness in about 14 sec, and die. The body is under atmospheric pressure on earth or in a space suit. Anything such as organs,lungs cardio-system vessels that hold pressure etc: would blow up with the air pressure trying to escape.

    Nothing would consume you in space, frozen and wandering forever.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    we dont know what it is within. but to get a better grasp of what scientists mean when they say the universe is expanding, you can think of bread rising in the oven with raisins in it getting further away from one another. or like a deflated balloon with dots on it and when you inflate the balloon the dots all move away.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    until you inevitably are pulled in by the gravity of something. most likely a star.

  • Achems_Razor

    Yes you are right, star, planet, maybe a black hole might pull her in, give her a real ride.

  • Guest

    Well then that's it, that's where i want to die. Hopefully at 54 i still have a chance to be launched, once there i'll elope...want to join?
    az

  • Guest

    Sounds even better now! Beats being chewed by worms...a real wormhole!
    Ya ba da ba dou!
    az

  • Guest

    When i was a little girl i thought for sure when we died we changed (or birth) into a star and that's why there were so many of them in the sky above. I used to tell that story with much confidence.
    And when i became a mom i used to say to my daughters:
    I love you as much as the sky, the stars and the firmament.
    az

  • Guest

    I wouldn't wear a space suit, i'd jump butt naked.
    az

  • Guest

    I started being interested in science around the time i was making bread every week.
    az

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    thats a lovely belief.

  • docoman

    I find the question of quantization of redshift quite interesting. If there is a 'shell' type effect, it is a problem to the expanding universe theory, unless that 'expands' in jumps. If there is no quantization of redshift and it is in fact a 'smooth' curve if graphed, it makes the 'constantly expanding universe' feel more correct.
    This constantly expanding universe poses another question.
    Empty space is not actually empty. At the quantum level, or planck or sub-planck level, there must be something that gives us what we see as Zero Point Energy. (the energy/ability to transfer EM spectrum still in a vacuum at absolute zero)
    If it is 'space itself expanding' more then galaxies moving away from each other, this would, to me, imply one of two possibilities.
    1. The density of space-time itself is becoming less dense as it expands. With the balloon analogy, the rubber becomes thinner as the balloon is stretched. (To me, this may well have implications as to the constant speed of light reaching us, as over time it travels though less and less 'dense space', because this expansion would change the amount of ZPE per unit length, and thus lights speed, POSSIBLY. This may give a false impression of exponentially faster expansion. Light's speed changed over distance, not the rate of the expansion rate.)

    2. Or, space is itself 'breeding', making more space (at the same density). If you think of each planck length kind of like a cell, and each cell/unit of space 'splits' making a copy of itself at regular time intervals. Over each unit of time, space would appear to expand (the new 'space lengths' have been made causing an expansion to fit them in). The further away something is, the more 'lengths' are between us, so the more 'lengths' are created each time unit, causing a faster expansion over more distance. This would make light have to travel, exponentially, through more 'space' to get here, causing redshift. The further away something is the faster it is moving away, and the further it is away the movement seems to be accelerating faster, as each 'time unit' there are more 'lengths' between us being made, causing the exponential acceleration we observe.

    I would like to hear comments on my thoughts, positive or negative.

  • docoman

    Yeah, that's more or less what I could find. I interpreted that as still being inconclusive. Neither as yes or a no. Not well established doesn't mean to me not correct, just not shown to be absolutely correct or incorrect. Re. my post before this, I think this may have interesting implications to our current theories.
    C'mon astrophysicists, I got some questions I would like answered. '06, that's 6 years, hurry up and check whether we can or can't measure/detect something please! lol.

  • docoman

    I see one point in what you are saying. IF what we can see is about 14B LY's out, and the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, then the age of the universe has to be more then 14B years old IF nothing has traveled faster then light. What we see 14B LY's away is, assuming light speed is constant, 14B years old. And thus, 14B years ago, it was 14B LY's away (to give us our current view). Inferring either something has moved faster then light to get there in 14B years (current age estimate), or the age of the universe is older (allowing everything to be in place 14B years ago to send it's light so we see as we do now, without traveling faster then light to get there in time), but is now 14B years older.

    Either we have expanded at some time faster then light if the age estimate is correct, or we are older if nothing has traveled faster then light until relatively recently. Or, the speed of light has changed en route to us, skewing the time and distance estimates.

    I was under the impression that during inflation things traveled faster then light, or else time/distance (space-time) wasn't the same as we see it now, so applying our current standard just doesn't fit. AND makes it much harder for us to understand. (but to me intuitively implies light speed isn't as constant as we assume and may skew our estimates.)

  • docoman

    Ahh, haven't heard of him till now. Thanks, I'll have a look. (Can you tell you got me doing some more reading on the subject? Cheers mate. :)

  • docoman

    Ok, it seems the quick answer to the question 'what is space' is we just don't know. Hopefully yet. What I was referring to as to what 'makes space expand' is known as Dark Energy. 'Don't know what it is' is that answer too.
    I guess that's some of the problem I and other people sometimes have with the BB theory. Can't explain the distance... come up with inflation. Can't explain the gravity/galaxy problem.... come up with Dark Matter. Can't explain the expansion... come up with Dark Energy. It feels like a lot of 'patch-work' to keep a theory going. I'm not saying it's not accurate, just seems a lot of add-ons to keep it alive.

    All it really says when it boils down to it is we are not sure, but as far as we know from what can see, it's the best we can currently come up with. (but does suggest that we keep an open mind as we may be quite wrong)

    I might have to re-watch Star Wars, see if the Jedi know. There seems to be a large influence from the 'dark side' going on. lol

    P.S. 'Accepted' science has been wrong about what we think about what we see in the skies in our history. Copernicus and Galileo showed us that. There is a precedence, we might be wrong again.

  • docoman

    One other question I have someone might know. When we look out at the universe, it seems we have a 'all points view', a spherical view, all around us out to about 14B LYs in all directions.
    Why then, does our solar system seem to have close to 1 orbital plane for the planets (not exactly 1 plane, but close to) instead of spherical orbits of the planets about the sun? And on the next scale up, why is it when we look at other galaxies, and also our own Milky Way, is it almost the same, close to 1 orbital plane. Why is it not spherical, a ball-shape instead of a coin shape? Gravity works out in all directions, so why not have a sphere shape of orbits around that point? (I saw on a doc. on here how we detected our black hole in the Milky Way, by the orbits of the stars around it. They had this 'spherical orbit' around that.)
    If that's the case, could the universe have 1 thick plane? It's just thicker then our current view of it. Maybe the universe is in some form of spin or 'orbit' about a 'center'. (maybe even 1 universe spinning amongst other universes like our galaxies.) We just can't see it because of the speeds involved relative to us (enter Mr. A Einstein). A 'static' universe, spinning at high speed amongst other fast universes, the light speed/sight problem stopping us seeing out past 14B LY's.
    I saw the light speed barrier isn't a problem if maybe you started faster then the speed of light. A physics 'loop-hole' possibly. It boils down to a matter of scale and perspective.

  • Achems_Razor

    Good question, the spherical plane of the bodies orbiting is because of the give and take and interaction of the forces of gravity of the universe as a whole as in the Galaxy rotation curve, centrifugal and centripetal spin and gravity, that is why the orbiting planes of the bodies do not orbit all over the place, starts from the basic spinnars of the quarks, up, down, spins etc:

  • docoman

    I like B Greene's writing style by the look of his stuff on his website. He seems intelligent and easy to understand. What was your impression of his books? (I assume you liked them as you read more then 1 :) I would have to do some more reading and thinking before I would bother him with an email. I can probably find many answers to most of my questions without hassling him. I am quite interested in redshift quantization though, and haven't had much luck at finding anyone recently looking that hard at it other then reviewing data already gathered.
    I have seen a number of times now redshift used in calculations for various things eg. galaxy rotation speed calculation ect. It seems they can do some fairly accurate, detailed calculations for a decent range out from us. It would suggest that if there is some significant quantization out there, it would probably have been noticed by now. Unless it's just been somehow missed. The accuracy and distance of observations, and the data needed my not be available to properly determine. It does tend to throw a spanner in the works with a lot of currently accepted theory, so it may not be investigated because of that. I imagine it would be very hard to get telescope time, especially the ones in orbit, for something that 'doesn't fit well' with current thinking. Not that high on the priority list. Maybe there's just not much in it, only a theory and statistical anomalies/errors, nothing more.

  • Achems_Razor

    Yes Greene has a great writing style, his books could be read by layman and scientist alike, gives that option in his books.

    Also Hawking latest book "The Grand Design" is a good read, explains how the universe came out of absolutely nothing.

    And another favorite of mine is Prof, Julian Barbour "The End of Time" where he explains time and space is illusion, everything is static. Also gives option for layman and scientist alike.

    Have good public library here.

  • Robyn318

    You said, “What we see 14B LY's away is, assuming light speed is constant, 14B years old.”
    And I say:
    And in order for us to see 14B years into the past today, the Universe would have had to expand at 14B times the speed of light. To me, that is just craziness.

    You said:
    ” (but to me intuitively implies light speed isn't as constant as we assume and may skew our estimates.)

    And I say:
    Supposedly the speed of light is the same relative to the observer; that is if I am standing still the speed of light appears to me as 186,000 mps and if you are traveling at light speed, to you light will also appear to be traveling at 186,000 mps. However, to 'me' the light you are observing should appear to be moving at twice the speed of light.

    How can I see light traveling at two different speeds; or how can light travel at two speeds and ‘appear’ to be traveling at the same speed?

  • Achems_Razor

    Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Read Einsteins theory of general and special relativity.

    Will tell you...Special relativity incorporates that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source!

  • tariqxl

    Guardians of da skies lol

  • docoman

    @ Robyn

    From your last post.
    "You said:
    ” (but to me intuitively implies light speed isn't as constant as we assume and may skew our estimates.)"

    If C is related to ZPE strength/density, if it is possible to change the density of ZPE this would have the affect of changing C.
    If C can in fact change, (against A. Einstein's thinking) our distance and time calculations could therefore be out, as we assume C is constant.

    IF Quantization of Red shift is a real phenomenon, it may be related to / caused by different densities of ZPE, if the above is true. At the very least it would mean the universe's expansion hasn't been a smooth acceleration.

    IF the C, ZPE relationship above is true, Red shift may not be caused by an expanding universe, it may be caused by a changing density of ZPE in a static universe.

    If that is the case, we need a re-think of our current theories. Einstein's intuition that it is a static universe my yet be correct.

  • Robyn318

    Im not following your thought process. ZPE is the lowest energy state of a quantum mechanical system and the lowest energy state of an electron. How does this affect the speed of light?

  • Robyn318

    You said,
    "With regards to your last paragraph, Razor is correct, Einstein worked this out for us, look up Special Theory of Relativity. That explains what you are talking about."

    One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

  • Robyn318

    You said:
    "A quote from that link;
    "This is owing to the circumstance that the zero-point energy density is assumed to be constant: no matter how much the universe expands it does not become diluted,..""

    And the rest of the quote is:
    "but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to be created out of nothing.”

    This is where I have problems with 'modern science'. Whenever it encounters a 'problem' it creates an appropriate answer 'out of nothing', then continues to extrapolate further into more assumptions as if it is fact and it ends up with multi-verses and 10-dimensions of space as necessary ingredients when in fact, we are just starting to understand the 4 dimensions we are currently dealing with.

    This is a very interesting article that I havent read before, thanks. On most issues he covers, he does show that there is an alternative answer as well.

    I am okay with the idea that ZPE = dark energy, it makes a lot of sense; I am not convinced on dark matter.
    How do you suppose that ZPE can accelerate light in multiples of C? I didn’t get that in this article.

    In his section “Is it possible to tap zero point energy?” , he writes “As to whether zero-point energy may become a source of usable energy, this is considered extremely unlikely by most physicists, and none of the claimed devices are taken seriously by the mainstream science community.”

    I am reading Dr. Judy Wood’s book, “Where did the towers go Evidence of directed free-energy technology”, I am about ¾ through it and she is giving a good case that the technology is currently available and was responsible for the 9/11 ‘dustification’ of the towers.

  • Guest

    Robyn318 and Docoman...your exchange reads like a good tennis game. It's nice to read a bouncing of opinion free of disrespect.
    az

  • Guest

    If you wrote something like this to me:
    cos(a+b+c)+cos(a)+cos(b)+cos(c)=4*cos((b+c)/2)*cos((a+b)/2)*cos((a+c)/2)...I would say what does that mean? The reason would be because i never do math, it is not part of my life.
    When i wrote what i wrote, you asked me what does that mean. Some people would immediately understand and others don't.
    Trying to explain it is in vain. All i can say is that one can come to see life as an illusion and come to connect at times with the void.
    az

  • Achems_Razor

    Az...you just wrote the theory of "TOE" the theory of everything! unbelievable

  • docoman

    I've never heard of Dr. Wood or that theory. An interesting read?

    I too have problems with logic that makes an assumption, then builds on that as if it is a fact, to the point it becomes 'accepted thought'. I would suggest that 'modern science' isn't the only 'logic' that has the capacity to do this. I think most organized religions have done and continue to do that. We are probably all guilty of it from time to time.

    I haven't yet put my finger on exactly whats bothering me. I'm only a beginner in physics, until the last week or so I've watched the odd Doc like some you'll find here on TDF, ( 3 cheers for Vlatko! ) but not done any reading or study on the subject since high school, which was a few years back now. I've read a bit the last week or so. There have been many advances since I was in school. Makes me feel old. :(
    I'm not voicing any thought-through opinions, I haven't nutted it out in my head yet exactly. (Need the time and quiet) I'm still assembling pieces of the jigsaw.
    I am curious in light speed through space-time. It dawned on me that all our distance and time measurements go on the assumption that C is constant in a vacuum. BUT, a vacuum isn't nothing. From what I've read, that's ZPE.
    I then read that ZPE is 'assumed' to be constant. As light speed is affected by the density of what medium it's traveling through, it makes sense to me that if that assumption is wrong and ZPE changes, so would C. With many possible implications.
    Redshift, ZPE, Dark Energy, C, Dark Matter, BB and an expanding universe are pieces of the jigsaw. Something isn't sitting right with me, I think it's the assumption that ZPE density doesn't change. It very well may be just my not understanding it all properly.

  • Guest

    Came right from my big toe as i was polishing my nails with bright red.
    az

  • docoman

    Hmm, if there is a God, he/she/it must like red. Do the other big toe, have a question about next weeks lotto numbers in your head while you do it.... ;)

  • Guest

    5,8,13,21,34,55, a slice of Fibonacci. I decided to paint my other foot's toes rainbow color.
    az

  • docoman

    Az, and you said you never do any math. You 'Fib'er :)

  • Jack1952

    Since the physical laws break down in a singularity, I don't see how Einstein's equation applies here. Like an immense black hole, the primordial singularity is made up of an incredible amount of mass. If we don't know the properties of a singularity or the rules that govern it (if any) how can we know whether or not it is possible for it to coalesce into the mass of our universe after the big bang? The singularity operates outside our known laws.

  • Jack1952

    That light is not traveling at two different speeds. It is the perception of the two observers that are different because of time dilation. Time is affected by speed and gravitation. The GPS that we use everyday proves this to be true. The clock on the satellite moves faster than the clocks on earth due to the effects of gravity. If this difference in clock movement is not adjusted the GPS in our cars would not work. The closer a traveler approaches the speed of light, the slower his clock moves or counts time. To the traveler it runs normally but if he returns to his starting point and compares his travel clock to the clocks he left behind he will find that the travel clock is way behind. A basic element of the theory of relativity.

  • Guest

    Don't you think if he returns to his starting point, the clock will also return to it's starting point position? If the change happens in one direction, isn't it normal that the change would happen in the opposite direction as well?
    You say way behind...meaning by split second?
    az
    an avatar would be great next to your name, easier to pick you through a crowd...just a suggestion. Your opinion is well worth tracking.

  • Jack1952

    It has nothing to do with direction. The closer one gets to the speed of light the slower time becomes for the traveler although it does not appear that way to the traveler. It has to do with the uniform speed of light.

    If I am on a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light and I shoot a cannon ball ahead of me at fifty miles an hour, from my perspective that cannon ball is travelling at fifty miles an hour only. If I pass you when I shoot the cannon ball it is going at half light speed (the speed I'm travelling) plus the fifty miles an hour from your vantage point or 1/2C + 50. However if I shine a flashlight ahead of me the beam of light will travel at C for both of us. You will not see that beam travelling at 1/2C + C. It is still C. This is a fact not some mind exercise. What allows this to happen is that time from my spaceship is moving slower then time is from your position. That is because of our different speeds relative to the speed of light and each other. It took a long time for me to grasp this concept. Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" explains it much better than I can and is a fascinating read.

    I said way behind but that may not be true. It depends on how fast the traveler was going and how long he traveled. The faster and longer he traveled the more discrepancy between the two clocks.

    Thank you for the comment. I'm flattered. As for an avatar, it is something that I have never really though about. Maybe I'll give it some consideration.

  • Robyn318

    No one knows if the physical laws break down in the 'singularity'. It is the only way to explain an otherwise unexplainable and unacceptable explanation. It is 'assumed' that the primordial point contained an 'incredible amount of mass'. IF something happens anywhere, there are laws governing the way it will 'react'; if not your singularity could have exploded into oblivion; but it didnt (in your theory), it expanded into the universe, therefore there had to be some law in effect to govern the fact that it happened this way and not another.

  • Jack1952

    The existence of the singularity was predicted using Einstein's equations explaining gravity and relativity. When mass exceeds a certain point and conditions are right the singularity forms, for example a black hole. If these same equations, which make sense and are correct in our physical universe, are used with the increased numbers of the singularity the answers and the mathematical models no longer make any sense. This is only a crude explanation as I am not qualified to try to explain it with any accuracy or credibility any further that this. If you watch "Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole" here on TDF you will find a segment that will explain it better then I can.

    Einstein predicted using his calculations that the singularity could theoretically exist. However, because the calculations started to not make sense and the implication that the physical laws break down in the singularity, he felt that there must be a mechanism that would prevent the singularity from forming. He even wrote a paper trying to prove this and he has subsequently been proved wrong as black holes are known to exist.

    As far as I know the laws governing the behavior of a singularity, if any, are just not known. It is literally a black hole, completely unknown. Any discussion about it would be speculative as there is nothing to go on that has any authority.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cchristiankg Christian Klinckwort Guerrero

    HI: Compared to the BBC, your language used, seems to aproach a very ignorant viewer, have you ever analiced this issue?

  • Greg Carveth

    no i have never anal iced any issue

  • jaberwokky

    Haha. Aw man, you just made my day.