Researcher on cloud nine over universe discovery

Jul 10, 2012
Researcher on cloud nine over universe discovery
A dwarf galaxy, some 48 million light years away. The orange blobs are hydrogen gas clouds, the faint blue background around them, young hot stars. The white dots are distant background galaxies.

(Phys.org) -- The mysteries of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang are one step closer to being solved, thanks to research from The Australian National University.

Astrophysics PhD candidate Mr David Nicholls from the Research School of , part of the ANU College of Physical and , used the ANU 2.3 metre telescope at the Siding Spring Observatory to study distant . The galaxies are regarded as ideal ‘laboratories’ for finding out how the Universe has evolved since the .

“At the beginning of the Universe, the only around were hydrogen and helium. Big stars formed from these elements and, as they evolved, burned the hydrogen and helium into an ‘ash’ of heavier elements. This ash included nitrogen, carbon and oxygen, which are essential for life,” Mr Nicholls said.

“When these big stars ran out of fuel, they blew up in the form of supernovae and mixed the heavier elements back into the hydrogen clouds.  New stars grew from the enriched gas.  But in Dwarf galaxies, this process has happened very slowly,” he said.

“Dwarf galaxies are the equivalent of historical villages. They still have most of their ‘old buildings’ intact, so we know what they were like when they were first built. On the other hand, in huge cities like Beijing, nearly all the old buildings have been ripped up and you can’t tell what they were like originally – just like larger galaxies.

“By studying dwarf galaxies, we can see what the Universe was like long ago. To do this, we measure the light from the various elements mixed into the hydrogen clouds in the dwarf galaxies, which tells us how enriched they are and how they have evolved since the Universe began.”

But when he started to analyse his measurements, Mr Nicholls discovered that the data didn’t fit the conventional theories. He set out to solve the mystery, and made an unexpected discovery.

“I found that the energies of the electrons in the gas clouds were not distributed the way people had always thought they should be,” he said.

“I used similar measurements of electron energies made by space probes in our Solar System as the basis for a new theory about how gases behave in distant galaxies.

“To my surprise, it explained my data and also solved other problems that had remained unexplained for over 40 years.”

Mr Nicholls said his research will allow more accurate measurements of the elements in distant galaxies and help to explain the evolution of the .

The research is published in The Astrophysical Journal and is available online

Explore further: 'Eye of Sauron': Using supermassive black holes to measure cosmic distances

Related Stories

New insights into the 'hidden' galaxies of the universe

Jun 14, 2011

A unique example of some of the lowest surface brightness galaxies in the universe have been found by an international team of astronomers lead by the Niels Bohr Institute. The galaxy has lower amounts of ...

Baby galaxies grew up quickly

May 16, 2012

Baby galaxies from the young Universe more than 12 billion years ago evolved faster than previously thought, shows new research from the Niels Bohr Institute. This means that already in the early history of ...

New stars from old gas surprise astronomers

Feb 18, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence of star birth within a cloud of primordial gas has given astronomers a glimpse of a previously unknown mode of galaxy formation. The cloud, known as the Leo Ring, appears to lack ...

Milky Way in mid-life crisis

May 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Milky Way is suffering from a mid-life crisis with most of its star formation behind it, new research from Swinburne University of Technology has shown.

Recommended for you

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

17 hours ago

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (42) Jul 10, 2012
At the beginning of the Universe, the only elements around were hydrogen and helium. Big stars formed from these elements and, as they evolved, burned the hydrogen and helium into an ash of heavier elements. This ash included nitrogen, carbon and oxygen, which are essential for life, Mr Nicholls said.
Mr Nicholls might also have been a little more accurate and said: "In the conventional theory, it is believed that...." Here of course it's stated as a truth, which it isn't. No one was there to observe such a formation of stars from just hydrogen and helium, all by themselves with no major ignition stimulus. Even if the required densities are reached [and the magnetic field repulsion overcome], ignition will not occur without the right kind of abrupt input. So far, this is one of the main bug bears in star formation theory. You can't have the first star unless there's already some exploding star, or some shock wave like perturbation in a gas cloud etc. Chicken and egg situation
msadesign
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 10, 2012
Is this some sort of creationist nonsense?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (19) Jul 10, 2012
Even if the required densities are reached [and the magnetic field repulsion overcome], ignition will not occur without the right kind of abrupt input.

Why? The possibility of fusion is a function of energy density. Whether it is reached abruptly or not isn't vital (NIF reaches it abruptly, JET did not need an abrupt change to initiate fusion - neither will ITER)

A slowly collapsing star with enough mass can very well initiate fusion. A 'shockwave' by another star would be WAY too weak to do anything but perturb the surface (and fusion happens in the core).
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2012
Is this some sort of creationist nonsense?


If you're referring to Kevin's comment, then yes it is creationist nonsense.
TabulaMentis
2.7 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2012
Chicken and egg situation.
The Holy Ghost (egg) was first and then Father in Heaven (chicken) was second.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
So I have to worship chickens and eggs now? You guys are just the most bizarre gang, ever.
smartninja
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2012
Wait, a universe was discovered?
Royale
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
Too bad the Creationists here don't have the chicken and egg thing figured out yet either...
The chicken came first, because the animals before it kept evolving until one creature had all the character traits that we define as a 'chicken'. That 'chicken' then laid the egg.
So chicken, then egg. Period.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2012
If only it were that simple...

The first living animal that possessed all traits necessary to qualify as a "chicken" was likely hatched from an egg... Also, eggs in general came before chickens.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
Even if the required densities are reached [and the magnetic field repulsion overcome], ignition will not occur without the right kind of abrupt input.
OMFG for a moment I thought that was someone who knew what he was writing. I thought that explained nebulae and other large formations. Perhaps dark matter is required to catalyze stars? But now I see it's just an soothsaying redneck FReeper pulling things out of his ass...
Silverhill
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2012
@kevinrts
No one was there to observe such a formation of stars from just hydrogen and helium
And (in many cases) no one saw the exact events leading to, say, a murder. Yet we can construct a good approximation by using remaining evidence.

Even if the required densities are reached [and the magnetic field repulsion overcome], ignition will not occur without the right kind of abrupt input.
What "magnetic field repulsion" are you positing as existing among large amounts of neutral matter?

You can't have the first star unless there's already some exploding star, or some shock wave like perturbation in a gas cloud etc. Chicken and egg situation.
Anisotropies in the primordial clouds of stuff, caused by turbulence in the expanding material, could cause local density increases leading to quicker aggregation of matter. Snowball situation.

This is a science-oriented site, not a creationism- or pseudo-science-oriented site. Keep it that way.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2012
Too bad the Creationists here don't have the chicken and egg thing figured out yet either...
Scientists believe everything came from nothing and the religious believe God has always existed, except for me. What I said was correct. You are the one who is wrong.
Now the question remains from from where did the Holy Ghost originate? I know the answer, but I am trying to see if you people can figure it out after all of the insults.
TabulaMentis
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2012
This is a science-oriented site, not a creationism- or pseudo-science-oriented site. Keep it that way.
Wrong. The Holy Ghost and Father in Heaven are all about science. You just think humans are the smartest thing to ever exist. The Holy Ghost is the smartest, fastest, most powerful creature to ever exist, more than Father in Heaven and it is also a female too.............
nevermark
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2012
@TabulaMentis,
]Scientists believe everything came from nothing...


LOL.

Why clutter this site with troll comments? If you like the articles, add something to them.
PhotonX
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2012
@Silverhill "And (in many cases) no one saw the exact events leading to, say, a murder. Yet we can construct a good approximation by using remaining evidence."
.
I've tried this before. Doesn't work. Kevin is impervious to this analogy, and believes it is impossible to solve murders by deduction, if no one was there to see it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2012
When the lede is outrageous, you know the science is mundane. Turns out several discrepancies are resolved by a small adjustment out of equilibrium for plasmas (with a lot of wave energy, I think).

But: Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it just shows how ridiculous their ideas and actions are. All observation is delayed by relativity (finite light speed) and spacetime relativity is what forms and paints our universe on the sky. We aren't there and when, but we observe what happens there and when. This is of course basic science, which is why it is so fun to see creationists reject the tools they need to be able to criticize it.

Among observed facts are working theories, since they observably predict processes that can be tested. That is why cosmology is both theory and fact, as is nucleosynthesis, planet formation, chemical evolution and biological evolution.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2012
Scientists believe everything came from nothing


Science is all over the place on this.

- Universes are zero energy, so there isn't any difference between "everything" and a vacuum. See quantum mechanics, where virtual particles fluctuate from a zero-point energy vacuum field. More precisely, there never was "nothing" in the religious sense.

And if universes are zero energy, they can tunnel from previous universes. But at the same time thermodynamics forbid a third party, no gods allowed.

- Eternal inflation is likely past-eternal (Susskind), in which case there was always a multiverse. No gods necessary.

- Many solutions to physics admit that universes tunnel out of a simpler vacuum. No gods likely (too complex).

- Similarly there are simple "no go" theorems that forbids such tunneling. Gets us back to eternal inflation.

The area needs more testing. The 125-126 GeV standard Higgs, if that is what it is, predicts eternal inflation FWIW.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012
I was making a remark about Kev's statement. Religious people always believe Father in Heaven is the first to exist and that 'he' has always existed, though I have heard years ago the religious believed everything originated from nothing like you so called scientists. Oh yeah, I have heard the vacuum (nothingness) angle also, but that does not answer the beginning issue and is only magic. I do not believe in magic.

I do add to articles at times, but only to be shot down by naysayers. I am years ahead of you people on the basic ToE issue, so get use to it.
Dr_Mabuse
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2012
I used similar measurements of electron energies made by space probes in our Solar System as the basis for a new theory about how gases behave in distant galaxies. To my surprise, it explained my data and also solved other problems that had remained unexplained for over 40 years.
Surely it would have been possible to explain to us what the new theory tells us and how it solved the other problems. But I can't find any word about that in this article. Of course, if the main parts of the theory is left hidden to us this is an invitation for paraphysical speculations.

I found the free preprint with a readable overview on arXiv here:
http://arxiv.org/...3880.pdf

Hope this helps.
dogbert
2.9 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2012
I found that the energies of the electrons in the gas clouds were not distributed the way people had always thought they should be, he said.

I used similar measurements of electron energies made by space probes in our Solar System as the basis for a new theory about how gases behave in distant galaxies.

To my surprise, it explained my data and also solved other problems that had remained unexplained for over 40 years.


It would have been nice if he had stated what he had discovered instead of just stating he had discovered something.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
the vacuum (nothingness)


See, you don't know what you're talking about... there is no such thing as "nothingness"... Imagine if you were the only thing in existence (that you could discern), floating in a field of blackness... you would have no idea of the orientation of your body, right? because there is no frame of reference... But, suppose you were spinning rapidly... your arms would still be flung outwards, so you would know that you were spinning even with no point of reference... but that begs the question, what are you spinning IN... what are you spinning in relation to? Space itself is something, even if it is "empty".
DaFranker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2012
[...] But, suppose you were spinning rapidly... your arms would still be flung outwards, so you would know that you were spinning even with no point of reference... but that begs the question, what are you spinning IN... what are you spinning in relation to? Space itself is something, even if it is "empty".

See. You just proved that there *is* such a thing as "nothingness". It merely doesn't equate to "vacuum". Nothingness is the absolute absense of even the possibility of existence. Infinitely nothing, in every way. It is logically impossible that any universe would arise from true nothingness, which begs the question.

Unfortunately, naive thinkers often use this as "proof" that there "must" have been a "god" "before" the Universe.
El_Nose
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2012
@everyone who doesn't know about the issues with star formation theory

-- kevin is right : star formation theory has some issues and scientists know it has issues are are looking for solutions, becuase what is observed doesn't fit known physics and math.

Cal Tech summary of star formation issues -- magnetic repulsion
http://ned.ipac.c...lz4.html

Cal Tech summary of star formation issues -- initial mass and accelerated rate
http://ned.ipac.c...lz5.html

Cambridge press book -- look at table of contents - good read if you can afford
http://www.amazon...02017553

other issues:
spin rate -- it should be a lot faster - friction doesn't solve this... magnetism ???

mass accretion -- how does the matter get from the accretion disk to the stellar core? magnetism ???

** The biggest issue in star formation is WE HAVEN"T SEEN IT -- and our best guesses have huge holes
El_Nose
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2012
Every effort right now is being made to catch star formation in the act -- we need to see it - and see it clearly to solve our problems. We are looking to find every stage of star formation -- why do you thing there are so many pictures of nebulae? they are star nurseries. If we can get some good pictures of the gasses moving and the rates and the mass we can start thinking of what can cause it.

I am sorry that people think that there is no God :: but what does that have to do with the fact that star formation theory is very weak right now.

And everyone that is condemning kevin is obviously not educated on the physics involved.

Do some research. A 2 minute google search on "star formation issues" would be sufficient to see his post is correct. We literally need to observe this to get it right.

** This message should be supported by the scientific community

-- I slam kevin when he is wrong, and he has gotten a lot better at picking his arguments.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2012
I was making a remark about Kev's statement. Religious people always believe Father in Heaven is the first to exist and that 'he' has always existed, though I have heard years ago the religious believed everything originated from nothing like you so called scientists. Oh yeah, I have heard the vacuum (nothingness) angle also, but that does not answer the beginning issue and is only magic. I do not believe in magic.

I do add to articles at times, but only to be shot down by naysayers. I am years ahead of you people on the basic ToE issue, so get use to it.

you get shot down because of that fucking nonsense about a holy ghost and religious stuff like that. as it should be so. this is science, not fantasyland.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2012
See, you don't know what you're talking about... there is no such thing as "nothingness"... Imagine if you were the only thing in existence (that you could discern), floating in a field of blackness... you would have no idea of the orientation of your body, right? because there is no frame of reference... But, suppose you were spinning rapidly... your arms would still be flung outwards, so you would know that you were spinning even with no point of reference... but that begs the question, what are you spinning IN... what are you spinning in relation to? Space itself is something, even if it is "empty".
Who said I believe in nothingness. Some dummy earlier stated that our universe could have originated from a void or vacuum. You are absolutely correct when you say our universe originated from somethingness.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2012
Unfortunately, naive thinkers often use this as "proof" that there "must" have been a "god" "before" the Universe.
Not me. Maybe Kev, but not me. But again, you need to ask yourself from where and how did the universe originate?

You get shot down because of that fucking nonsense about a Holy Ghost and religious stuff like that. As it should be so. This is science, not fantasyland.
Why do you put restraints on science. Is it because of hate? Why would I say the Holy Ghost is the first person and a female? You need to figure out what the Holy Ghost is and looks like before you start knocking the idea. The same can be said for Heaven.
TabulaMentis
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2012
Every effort right now is being made to catch star formation in the act -- we need to see it - and see it clearly to solve our problems. We are looking to find every stage of star formation -- why do you think there are so many pictures of nebulae? They are star nurseries. If we can get some good pictures of the gases moving and the rates, and the mass we can start thinking of what can cause it.
To take a quick guess it would probably have almost everything to do with DM and momentum.
Silverhill
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2012
@TabulaMentis
This is a science-oriented site, not a creationism- or pseudo-science-oriented site. Keep it that way.
Wrong. The Holy Ghost and Father in Heaven are all about science. You just think humans are the smartest thing to ever exist.
No, we just think that humans are the smartest thing KNOWN to exist. Unless you are victim of hallucination, delusion, or solipsism, I can show you that humans exist. Now it's your turn: show, incontrovertibly, that She exists.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2012
Unfortunately, naive thinkers often use this as "proof" that there "must" have been a "god" "before" the Universe.
Not me. Maybe Kev, but not me. But again, you need to ask yourself from where and how did the universe originate?

You get shot down because of that fucking nonsense about a Holy Ghost and religious stuff like that. As it should be so. This is science, not fantasyland.
Why do you put restraints on science. Is it because of hate? Why would I say the Holy Ghost is the first person and a female? You need to figure out what the Holy Ghost is and looks like before you start knocking the idea. The same can be said for Heaven.

and once again im going to say thats a bunch of fucking nonsense. no need to look further. i dont care about your creationist like philosophical beginning metaphors. heaven, holy ghost, "first mother" are all garbage antiquated concepts with NO proof ever given to their existing in reality. THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE! NOT FANTASYLAND!!!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
Now it's your turn: show, incontrovertibly, that She exists.
This link is the best I can do.

http://www.pistis...rit.html

The Holy Ghost has been sighted around ten times over the past five-thousand years. You know those ring shaped halos you see flying around saints heads in old religious painting, guess what they are? If you saw the Holy Ghost it would look like a single tail comet about 27 inches long by about 3/16 of an inch wide. If you see artwork like what I just described or see them flying around in TV commercials or in logos, then you will know who started the idea twenty-one years ago you fool. You are losing the battle, jackass and you do not even know it. It is all over the world, so screw you!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2012
Once again im going to say thats a bunch of fucking nonsense. no need to look further. i dont care about your creationist like philosophical beginning metaphors. heaven, holy ghost, "first mother" are all garbage antiquated concepts with NO proof ever given to their existing in reality. THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE! NOT FANTASY
Then go to some other site, because I have a feeling this site is about to become more religious, jackass.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
oh, you do? thats great. i dont care what you think. stop polluting these comments with your religious crap. cant you understand what im trying to say? obviously no so i'll give you one more chance....THIS IS A SITE ABOUT SCIENCE! RELIGIOUS IDEALS HAVE NO PLACE HERE! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2012
oh, you do? thats great. i dont care what you think. stop polluting these comments with your religious crap. cant you understand what im trying to say? obviously no so i'll give you one more chance....THIS IS A SITE ABOUT SCIENCE! RELIGIOUS IDEALS HAVE NO PLACE HERE! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!
So you are going to give me one more chance, huh? Go to Hell!
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2012
Please apply this to your postings about holy spirit and such and ask how scientific it really is........
Introduction to the Scientific Method
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2012
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2012
Hey JsDarkDestruction, the Holy Ghost is a UFO, dude!
The Subtle Serpent was one, but has been grounded for a while.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2012
I have an idea the Holy Ghost and the Subtle Serpent use to be boyfriend/girlfriend, but the Subtle Serpent tried the rip the Holy Ghost a new one, and made her really mad!
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2012
so in other words you admit im right and your non-scientific statements dont belong here?
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2012
Then go to some other site, because I have a feeling this site is about to become more religious, jackass.


Physorg, can we ban this guy already?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2012
So in other words you admit I'm right and your non-scientific statements don't belong here?
Subtle creatures like the Holy Ghost are all about science. You do not get to pick and choose what is science, and what is not. The same goes for Heaven. Heaven is a cube made out of flat two-dimensional particles compressed together. That is what you call science! If you do not like the story behind the science, then that is your problem.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
I have an idea the Holy Ghost and the Subtle Serpent use to be boyfriend/girlfriend, but the Subtle Serpent tried the rip the Holy Ghost a new one, and made her really mad!


Reality myth....busted.
So who did the Holy ghost date after the not so subtle serpent tried to drive the hershey highway?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2012
Reality myth....busted. So who did the Holy ghost date after the not so subtle serpent tried to drive the hershey highway?
Very funny! I do not know. She is capable of having offspring. Go figure. You would think something that smart would not try getting involved with a love partner. It is just an idea, but there is something strange about the Subtle Serpent and Lucifer story, and how it all got started.

Good luck on figuring out what DM is! I enjoy watching you naysayers squawking and squirming. However, once you figure it out, rest assured that I have already copyrighted the theory! LOL
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2012
still curious why someone voted my comment a 1
Silverhill
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2012
You do not get to pick and choose what is science, and what is not. The same goes for Heaven. Heaven is a cube made out of flat two-dimensional particles compressed together. That is what you call science!
This is beginning to sound like Gene Ray's "Time Cube" now. Check it out at http://www.timecube.com , but hold on to your sanity (not that Ray makes it easy!).
It's no more scientific than is your Holy Ghost....
InterPur
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2012
I know the answer to the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It was neither. The rooster came first.

:)
A2G
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2012
And we are back. That was a really weird sideline. How about we talk about the info covered in the article and just ignore the religious stuff.

TabulaMentis...You are just screwing with us aren't you? You have to be.
Graeme
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2012
Back to the topic of the article, the electrons had a lot more energy at higher energies than a thermal distribution. They follow a kappa-distribution, as invented by Vasyliunas in 1968. You can read the paper here. http://www.mso.an...ppa2.pdf
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2012
You know those ring shaped halos you see flying around saints heads in old religious painting, guess what they are?
Halos are symbolic of the sun-god. Literally the christ was the SUN of god. The early xtian cross was a plus sign inscribed within a circle. Christianity originated from Egyptian religions which worshiped Horus the sun god, who lives in the giant stone penis obelisks erected around the world. That's all.
elektron2kim
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2012
One thing I learned here is "We don't know yet!" and still all believe in some sort of creation in the beginning and discuss it as some sort of happening that could be bent by oppinion. What is the truth? Mr Nicholls seems to look for it. All of us might be wrong with our predetermined imaginary ideas when he is done. Science should not be limited to believing in the Big Bang alone, but it do seem to be sensored when putting a "religious" idea into it - it's not really proof to just postulate it, is it? (Did you observe the Bang or the hand of God? Could the Bang be heard or was it light?) I could postulate a hole in another universe that fractured due to filling up which dropped down mass and peacefully emerged to our universe. Still we are missing out on SPACE - how did that happen?
elektron
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
You can't have the first star unless there's already some exploding star, or some shock wave like perturbation in a gas cloud etc.


Why not? Collapse and ignition under gravity is sufficient.
ROBTHEGOB
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
There was never any "Big Bang". That is just contemporary scientific theory. It is pure claptrap, as was the theory of Earth as the center of the universe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2012
It's the best theory out there (as it fits observation)

You have a better one? Let's hear it. Publish it. Win a Nobel prize!
But somehow I doubt yours is any good (or even fits observation).
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
@kevinrts attempts to think critically about the information he's being served, and people shout him down as a creationist! WTF is wrong with people?

Once again, it appears necessary to explain that critical thinking includes a process of questioning assumptions. It's very worrying that people no longer appear to understand what critical thinking is, but we should expect that people can question assumptions without being called a heretic. If not, then there's a big problem.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2012
Re: "You have a better one? Let's hear it. Publish it. Win a Nobel prize! But somehow I doubt yours is any good (or even fits observation)."

By the way, you might want to learn what the term "pseudo-skepticism" means. Biased skepticism is not some noble approach to science which anybody should express pride in. It's a widely-acknowledged dangerous threat to science. Skepticism only serves as a valuable tool for science when it is done in an open-minded manner. There is no value to a philosophy which is blatantly just a knee-jerk defense of textbook theory, which is precisely what you're doing here. This isn't even an accurate description of what the public thinks that it's paying for. Scientists are assumed by those paying for it to also follow promising leads which aren't covered by the textbooks.

It's also incidentally known that financial rewards can undermine creative problem-solving. See Daniel Pink's book, Drive, which is essentially dedicated to this subject.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2012
There is no value to a philosophy which is blatantly just a knee-jerk defense of textbook theory, which is precisely what you're doing here.

Nope. I keep my eyes peeled for new theories just like the next guy interested in science. But the thing is: when you see one that doesn't provide any math then you can pretty much discount it. It means that the person has just 'philosophized' about something and then issued a brainfart.

The standard model needs no defense. It's currently the best we've got. If something better comes along it'll go out the window faster than you can say "Bye". That's how science works.

But that's the central point: IF you attack it you had better have a better theory. One that explains more, makes better predictions and fits all old observations. If you don't then you have no leg to stand on.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.