Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

June 26, 2015 by Tara Burcham
The standard view of the expanding universe.

Many know the phrase "the big bang theory." There's even a top television comedy series with that as its title. According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today. Yet, the gravity of all of this matter, stars, gas, galaxies, and mysterious dark matter, tries to pull the universe back together, slowing down the expansion.

Now, two physicists at The University of Southern Mississippi, Lawrence Mead and Harry Ringermacher, have discovered that the universe might not only be expanding, but also oscillating or "ringing" at the same time. Their paper on the topic has been published in the April 2015 issue of the Astronomical Journal.

In 1978 Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson received the Nobel prize for their 1964 discovery of the key signature of this theory, the primal radiation from the early universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB).

"Then in 1998 the finding that the universe was not only expanding, but was speeding up, or accelerating in its expansion was a shock when it was discovered simultaneously by east coast and west coast teams of astronomers and physicists," said Mead. "A new form of matter, dark energy, repulsive in nature, was responsible for the speed-up. The teams led by Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess, and Brian Schmidt won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for that discovery."

According to Mead and Ringermacher, this change from slowing down to speeding up (the transition time) took place approximately 6 to 7 billion years ago. Since then, Mead and Ringermacher say a vast accumulation of high-tech data has verified the theory to extraordinary accuracy.

Figure 1 is a NASA diagram representing the events of the Big Bang from the beginning of time to the present day as described by the current, accepted model known as "Lambda CDM" or Lambda Cold Dark Matter, where the Greek Lambda stands for Einstein's "cosmological constant". This cosmological constant is responsible for the acceleration of the universe. The outline of the "bell-shaped" universe represents its expanding size. The transition time is the point in time at which the bell shape shifts from going inward to outward from left to right.

The universe ringing while expanding.

"The new finding suggests that the universe has slowed down and speeded up, not just once, but 7 times in the last 13.8 billion years, on average emulating dark matter in the process," said Mead. "The ringing has been decaying and is now very small – much like striking a crystal glass and hearing it ring down."

Figure 2 shows the new finding superposed on the Lambda CDM model of Figure 1. The oscillation amplitude is highly exaggerated, but the frequency is roughly correct. Ringermacher and Mead have determined that this oscillation is not a wave moving through the universe, such as a gravitational wave, but rather it is a "wave of the universe".

Ringermacher says the discovery was made accidentally when, through their collaboration on modeling of galaxies, they found a new way of plotting a classic textbook graph describing the scale of the universe against its age (lookback time) that did not depend on one's prior choice of models of the universe – as was traditional.

"The standard graph, the Hubble diagram, is constructed by astronomers observing the distances of Type 1A Supernovae that serve as "standard candles" for measuring the expansion of the universe," said Ringermacher. "Analyzing this new plot to locate the transition time of the universe, we found there was more than one such time – in fact multiple oscillations with a frequency of about 7 cycles over the lifetime of the universe. It is space itself that has been speeding up its expansion followed by slowing down 7 times since creation."

Mead and Ringermacher say this finding must ultimately be verified by independent analyses, preferably of new supernovae data, to confirm its reality. In the meantime, their work into the "ringing" of the continues.

Explore further: The mysterious dark energy that speeds the universe's rate of expansion

More information: "Observation of Discrete Oscillations in a Model-Independent Plot of Cosmological Scale Factor versus Lookback Time and Scalar Field Model," H. I. Ringermacher & L. R. Mead, 2015 April, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 4, 137 dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/137, Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1502.06140

"Model-independent Plotting of the Cosmological Scale Factor as a Function of Lookback Time," H. I. Ringermacher & L. R. Mead, 2014 November, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 148, No. 5, 94 dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/94, Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1407.6300

To learn more about Ringermacher and Mead's research, visit Ringermacher's website at ringermacher.com/. For more information about the Department of Physics and Astronomy, visit www.usm.edu/physics.

Related Stories

How fast is the universe expanding?

February 10, 2015

The Universe is expanding, but how quickly is it expanding? How far away is everything getting from everything else? And how do we know any of this anyway?

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Supernova ignition surprises scientists

May 20, 2015

Scientists have captured the early death throes of supernovae for the first time and found that the universe's benchmark explosions are much more varied than expected.

Recommended for you

Major space mystery solved using data from student satellite

December 13, 2017

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

Spanning disciplines in the search for life beyond Earth

December 13, 2017

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...

161 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2015
Don't ya gotta love that geometric configuration that looks ike the Universe was shot from the bottom of a cannon?

Guess these guys still haven't read this part of Einstein's General Relativity:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
dogbert
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2015
"Analyzing this new plot to locate the transition time of the universe, we found there was more than one such time – in fact multiple oscillations with a frequency of about 7 cycles over the lifetime of the universe. It is space itself that has been speeding up its expansion followed by slowing down 7 times since creation."


If their analysis is correct and space time is oscillating, does that mean that the mysterious dark energy we have postulated driving an accelerating expansion is just the rising edge of an oscillation and the expansion will slow again on the back side of the wave?
arom
Jun 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 27, 2015
Ding dongs, one and all...

BB creationists belief system is a religious experience.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (15) Jun 27, 2015
Ding dongs, one and all...

BB creationists belief system is a religious experience.
From catching and recording light curves of fleeting gamma ray bursts, to telescopes with lenses made of galaxy clusters, to mapping and measuring the anisotropy of microwaves across the entire sky, pretty sophisticated instruments and methods for ding dongs. What ails you?
brad_210000
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2015
Ringing huh. Maybe it's making the OM sound. But if it is ringing or even making the OM sound, and if there's no one to hear it, then ...
c0y0te
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2015
Ringermacher discovers ringing. :)
Bob Osaka
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2015
@dogbert

If their analysis is correct and space time is oscillating, does that mean that the mysterious dark energy we have postulated driving an accelerating expansion is just the rising edge of an oscillation and the expansion will slow again on the back side of the wave?


Yes, that's exactly what it means. The expansion is a constant, the rate of expansion is a wave function of momentum and wavelength first postulated by Einstein in 1905 and expounded on by De Broglie, Schrodinger and others.
Further it is consistent with Inflation theory and observation.
There are still some very big questions to answer but it seems like a step in the correct direction.
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2015
The inflation period represented in this theoretical curve is invented with the idea to circumvent the known physical laws. Otherwise would follow the gravitational collapse and the theory of big bang would be impossible. But this assumption is pure speculation. There is no factual basis for such hypothesis.

I suggest you missed the observations. You are welcome to put forward a different explanation of them, but be warned: this requires actual knowledge and skills.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
Don't ya gotta love that geometric configuration that looks ike the Universe was shot from the bottom of a cannon?

Guess these guys still haven't read this part of Einstein's General Relativity:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
...

So Einstein did not know everything. Surprised ?
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
@cantdrive85
Every thing in our physical reality have cause and effect. And from our observations we know that behind the cause alway stay reasonable being or physical laws fine tuned by reasonable being. So the creation can no emerge without the Creator and the reason.

What is a "creator" ?
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2015
It's known for quite some time (Tift, 1973) already, that the galaxies form "megawalls" http://ray.tomes....llc.gif. Compare also "quantized redshift" topic at Wikipedia. Actually the regularity of steps with distance speaks against expanding Universe model, because their size should change with distance linearly.

Quote from your own link: "no evidence of quantization"
Doug_Huffman
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
Explanation requires no scientific skill, but only a credulous audience, as 'explainers' and witch doctors know and demonstrate.

The Standard Models, of particle physics and cosmology are not Popper falsifiable. They're based on Quarks, Quarks and Gluons all the way down with no end, and multiverses all the way up with limit not considered.

With infinite fundamental time and only emergent contingent space, all possibilities must be realized and in all their infinite variations. This moment is unique only in this infinitesimal.
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2015
This PO article is simply awful! Tara Burcham, the author, makes such a hash of trying to dumb things down that it's no wonder so many proponents of pseudo-science have jumped on it.

Example:
According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today
Complete nonsense!!

Worse, it may be that Tara is working from a PR prepared by The University of Southern Mississippi.

@Benni, dogbert, docile, cantdrive85, Ren82: did you actually *read* the two papers the PO article cites?
JeanTate
3.8 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2015
@Doug_Huffman:
The Standard Models, of particle physics and cosmology are not Popper falsifiable
Actually, both are. And in quite straight-forward ways
They're based on Quarks, Quarks and Gluons all the way down with no end
Um, no. The Standard Model (of particle physics) stops at quarks and gluons (etc); there's no 'all the way down'
and multiverses all the way up with limit not considered
THAT's the part that not falsifiable. Multiverses etc are, however, not part of any Standard Model (and the physicists who are in favor of such nonsense are getting a lot of flak from their colleagues; check out the Not Even Wrong blog by Peter Woit).
richardwenzel987
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2015
Who created the creator?
Stevepidge
1.9 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
By resorting to mathematical models scientists have failed to heed the warnings of Godel. You will never know truth through math alone, it does not exist nor can it be constrained by such language. If we want to further understand the universe we must go beyond math. It's well is dry and the understanding possibly derived incomplete.
JeanTate
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 27, 2015
@Stevepidge:
By resorting to mathematical models scientists have failed to heed the warnings of Godel. You will never know truth through math alone, it does not exist nor can it be constrained by such language. If we want to further understand the universe we must go beyond math. It's well is dry and the understanding possibly derived incomplete
Serious question: how do you design, build, and operate an observatory such as the Hubble Space Telescope or the Very Large Array without mathematics? without mathematical models?

When you get the raw data from observatories/telescopes/instruments like these, how do you analyze it without mathematical models?

Your thoughts ended up as characters in PO; how did that happen? In a detailed explanation of how that happened, how do you avoid mathematical models?
rufusgwarren
4 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2015
meh,

looks like an impedance mismatch between science and reality!
Tuxford
2 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2015
'Mead and Ringermacher say this finding must ultimately be verified by independent analyses, preferably of new supernovae data, to confirm its reality.'

Merger maniacs defending a lifetime of working on a nonsense fantasy. They certainly don't want to look like fools. And the recent observations are running afoul of their lifetime dreams.
rufusgwarren
3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2015
Defining a non-causal science to define the causal, i.e. definable, is a science defined with a mystery. The mystery is the lack of logic! If I stand in front of you and disappeared, do I exist or do I not exist is a ridiculous question, Schrodinger's cat. It is not physics, its an aberration! So light ...
Enthusiastic Fool
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2015
Damn, I was sure I'd see some "dense aether" "ripples on surface of water" quakery in here. I would not have bet on the "modern physics is a religion" community being the dominant form. I must be slipping.
Stevepidge
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2015
@jeantate

Do you deny the truths of incompleteness theorems? What you assert as facts are mere approximations. Math is just another language, it is not the dining characteristic of the universe.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
@Benni, did you actually *read* the two papers the PO article cites?


.....anything proposing that the Universe was ejected from the bottom of a cannon is hardly worth the time for further reading.

Question for you JT? Do you believe it? YES or NO? Let's see how well you take that "fork".
JeanTate
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 27, 2015
@stevepidge:
Do you deny the truths of incompleteness theorems?
Yes. They are proven, in a mathematical sense; that doesn't make them "true"
What you assert as facts are mere approximations
Strawman. I did not "assert" any "facts". But if you do not wish to say, honestly, that mathematical models are essential for the Hubble to work (to pick just one example), then I won't deny your denial
JeanTate
3 / 5 (14) Jun 27, 2015
@Benni:
Question for you JT? Do you believe it? YES or NO? Let's see how well you take that "fork"
What I believe is, as cd said somewhere or other, utterly irrelevant.

But since you asked, I think (not believe) that you have a poor grasp of the nature of astrophysics and cosmology, as branches of science.

As for the PO article itself; well, I've already commented on that (it puzzles me greatly when popsci writers dumb things down so much as to be nigh on unintelligible ...)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2015
Damn, I was sure I'd see some dense aether ripples on surface of water quakery in here I would not have bet on the "modern physics is a religion" community being the dominant form


So how about the below quote from Einstein's GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
gwrede
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2015
I don't know why everybody is so skeptic about this ringing. I found the article made me slap my forehead and say "now why didn't I think of this".

Even if it turns out not to be the case, it's interesting that this hasn't already occurred to dozens of cosmologists.

Actually, if the universe is not ringing like this, then there should be some reason why it isn't.
JeanTate
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
@Benni:
So how about the below quote from Einstein's GR
You have a source?

Do you consider Einstein to be infallable?
In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it
What is that connection? And has it been quantified?
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today .... Complete nonsense!!
This is http://www.ugcs.c...ang.htm. And it's clearly illustrated at the article picture above. What is wrong about it? You got many up-votes - so I'm interested about explanation... ;-)
Simple exlanation: The "Big Bang Theory" rests on two, well-established theories in physics, GR and the Standard Model of particle physics ('SM'). Conservatively, one can 'extrapolate backwards' to a time/regime in which the universe's temperature and density are at the upper end of the SM's domain of applicability (~TeV, per LHC); more radically, to the Planck regime, where the fundamental, mutual incompatibility of GR and quantum theory produces irreconcilable effects.

So, the earliest state of the universe, in cosmology, is somewhat beyond the Planck regime. Period.

Questions?
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2015
@Benni:
So how about the below quote from Einstein's GR


You have a source?
.......great comeback, I quote it directly from the pages of Einstein's GR & you ask me if I "have a source". Obviously you've never delved very far into GR & the more you post the more cogent that becomes.

Do you consider Einstein to be infallable?
....... I think you mean QUANTIFIABLE don't you?

I can now understand why you are so infatuated the Philosophy of Quantum Theory, it's your escape route for your lack of knowledge in fields of scientific endeavor. You won't even answer YES or NO when I ask if you believe in the existence of Dark Matter, you equivocate that all over the place, I guess you do this because you imagine that 6th grade science students marvel at your use of the vocabulary of professional Scientists/Engineers, but strung together so incoherently as to be nothing less than ad hoc meaningless gibberish.

brad_210000
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2015
Who created the creator?


Who created bosons, fermions and natural laws? If they can appear spontaneously, why can't a creator appear spontaneously?
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
I was sure I'd see some "dense aether" "ripples on surface of water" quakery in here
The above study did actually introduce a new form of "aether" - so called "scalar field" and it derived, that in the presence of this field the frequency of dark matter ripples fits the dark matter parameter in Friedmann model of expanding Universe. Therefore the sparse aether model essentially fits the expanding Universe - just under another name.


......put equivocation aside, Dark Matter is the "old aether" that has been reinvented.

Odd isn't it? How it's postulated to be 90% of the mass of the Universe but we can't measure a scintilla of evidence for it in the form of gravity.

It's further odd that Astrophysicists are discovering halos often stretching from one galactic structure to another is composed solely of normal matter with no imposing influences exerted to distort them that would be suggestive of mysterious gravity holding Spiral galaxies together.

Doug_Huffman
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2015
Who created the creator?
That is easy. With infinite fundamental time as proposed by Lee Smolin et alii, all possibilities must be realized (made real) in all their possible variations. This reality universe and perhaps others has a God that cannot be faslified.

Beware that an assertion of non-existence, as of no-God, requires examination of the entire universe of discourse, here all reality. Beware The Black Swan hiding camouflaged in the fractally complex reality of this universe - see Benoit Mandelbrot and N. N. Taleb.
docile
Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
"Who created bosons, fermions and natural laws? If they can appear spontaneously, why can't a creator appear spontaneously?"

If bosons, fermions and natural laws can appear spontaneously, who needs a creator?
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2015
@docile:
@JeanTate: So that the above picture is BS, the BBS presentation about it is BS? Nobody says, that the Big Bang theory is in agreement with GR
Really? Have you opened a graduate-level textbook on astrophysics lately (I can recommend you some, if you're interested)?
after all, the singularities in GR don't explode... Yet it is a mainstream model.
Um, no ... most cosmological models do not have anything to say about the Planck regime, and 'GR singularities' do not exist outside that. Of course, *some* models incorporate ideas of quantum gravity, in which case there's no 'GR singularity'
why did you consider the BBS description of it a nonsense?
Because it includes these words: "... diagram representing the events of the Big Bang from the beginning of time to the present day as described by the current, accepted model known as "Lambda CDM"". LCDM model do not start at 'the beginning of time'.

Are you familiar with the phrase 'lies to children'?
JeanTate
3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
@docile:
Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.

You seem to have equated what's in popsci articles - such as this PO one - with the science of astrophysics and cosmology. In my last comment I asked you if you are familiar with the phrase 'lies to children' ... I do not know what, if any, professional field you work or study in, but it would be a most unusual one where the exact details of the finer points are conveyed accurately and comprehensively in popsci articles.

Sadly, for whatever reason, LCDM cosmological models suffer badly at the hands of popsci writers, and even some astrophysicists too; "beginning of time" is one of the more egregious 'lies to children' IMHO.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2015
@Benni:
I quote it directly from the pages of Einstein's GR
I'm sure you think you did, and you may well have done so. How about sharing the details? Which of Einstein's papers/books/etc did you quote from?
but strung together so incoherently as to be nothing less than ad hoc meaningless gibberish
Sorry to hear you're having such difficulty understanding. I'll try harder in future to make things clearer, but will continue to point out the 'lies to children'.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2015
@Ren82:
There is no interdependence between the standard model and the big bang theory
I've got a couple of grad-level textbooks on my bookshelf which say you're wrong. Whatever, how about Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow (1948)? Here's a link: http://journals.a...v.73.803
So you do not see obvious contradictions of these theories with the facts of observations and experiments
Reallly? How about you cite one such, for each of the Standard Model (of particle physics) and GR? With a proper reference (i.e. to a primary source)
his rebellion against God and God's order
Whose god would that be? Krishna perhaps? Or the Rainbow Serpent? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2015
Sadly, for whatever reason, LCDM cosmological models suffer badly at the hands of popsci writers, and even some astrophysicists too


......you've got it just about backwards. It suffers because the LCDM model postulates outcomes resulting in 90% of Universe composed of contrived models claiming more gravity exists in the Universe than can be accounted for by visible matter. Then PopSci jumps on some Quantum Theorist's bandwagon of contrived gravity & we get La La Lamda Land, a perfect eclectic blending of opportunistically inclined PopSci writers & QT Theorists.

Next to jump aboard the bandwagon are the Funny Farm Science crowd now having adopted elements of PopSci & QT but who have never seen a Differential Equation they could solve & we get the ensuing chaos on sites like this promulagted by no less than yourself who has never seen a YES or NO question you're willing to answer.

JT, I'm curious, does YES or NO exist in the realm of Quantum Theory?

bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2015
If you don't like the Physorg articles you could simply go elsewhere. Relief then for some of us from your bigotry.

JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
the LCDM model postulates outcomes resulting in *~99%* of Universe composed of contrived models claiming more gravity exists in the Universe than can be accounted for by visible matter
Fixed that for you ... most of the ordinary (a.k.a. baryonic) matter in the universe is not 'visible'
... & QT Theorists [...] does YES or NO exist in the realm of Quantum Theory
Just so that I don't misunderstand you, are you claiming - albeit not directly - that the Standard Model (of particle physics), say, and QED are not consistent with the results of a very wide range of experiments?
JeanTate
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2015
@bluehigh:
If you don't like the Physorg articles you could simply go elsewhere.
What, and give up the opportunity to be verbally abused and insulted by you? ;-)
Relief then for some of us from your bigotry
And give up pointing out how some comments are explicitly against the PO comments guidelines? What would be the fun in that? ;-)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
the LCDM model postulates outcomes resulting in 90% of Universe composed of contrived models claiming more gravity exists in the Universe than can be accounted for by visible matter
Fixed that for you ... most of the ordinary (a.k.a. baryonic) matter in the universe is not visible
So how much of the sun is missing? 99%?
does YES or NO exist in the realm of Quantum Theory
Just so that I don't misunderstand you, are you claiming - albeit not directly - that the Standard Model (of particle physics), say, and QED are not consistent with the results of a very wide range of experiments?
All of the Sun's gravity is accounted accounted for by it's visible mass, that's an observation

It's suddenly just rung through crystal clear to me, you are a PopSci Fiction writer, someone with just enough of a high school level comprehension of science trying to become the next Arthur C Clarke who probably made more money than Albert Einstein ever did.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2015
I realize this is not the most scientifically important of questions to ask now, but I'm really curious as to the frequency at which the universe would oscillate according to the findings of these scientists, i.e. what is the tonic note of the universe?
casualjoe
5 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2015
Tom it's about 1.6x10^-18 Hz. I'm pretty sure there is no sound system on Earth capable of playing base that phat.

Gorgeous theory by the way, still needs work and of course, more SNs but they will come with time.
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
Tom it's about 1.6x10^-18 Hz. I'm pretty sure there is no sound system on Earth capable of playing base that phat.

Gorgeous theory by the way, still needs work and of course, more SNs but they will come with time.


Thanks! Well, no, by definition there is no system that could play it, but shifting it several (ok, a *LOT* of) octaves yields the same note in a different register. After a little calculation, it would seem that it's a rather sharp B flat.
docile
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eddy Courant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2015
About that other part. The part the universe is expanding in.
docile
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
@docile:
Wikipedia is an authoritative source about what the standard cosmological model is and what isn't
Oh dear ... if you're studying accounting, say, or underwater welding, or oncology, do you use Wikipedia as an authorative source? Should you ever get cancer (and I most sincerely hope you never do), would you be OK with being treated by an oncologist whose training was based on Wikipedia articles?
[WP] It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology
[docile] Therefore the Standard model is based on Big Bang cosmology
Two things: The Standard Model (capital S, M) is usually shorthand for that Standard Model of particle physics (not cosmology); the WP entry uses a qualifier ("frequently") and links the LCDM model to BB cosmology by calling it 'the standard model' (lower case s, m)
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
[me] Fixed that for you ... most of the ordinary (a.k.a. baryonic) matter in the universe is not visible
So how much of the sun is missing? 99%?
Time for Astronomy 101 (didn't think I'd have to, for you Benni).

The Sun has an absolute magnitude (Ma) of ~4; assuming the Hubble can 'go down' to 29, the Sun would be barely visible at a distance of only 10 Mpc (please check my arithmetic, I may have made a mistake). Not even a tenth of the way to the Coma cluster

Proxima Centuri ("PC"), the nearest star to us, other than the Sun, has an Ma of ~15, so the Hubble could not 'see' it even if it were in M31

Kicker: surveys like Recons (http://www.recons.org/) have shown that faint stars like PC are far more common than the Sun, and that these stars also dominate re mass

Collective light, millions of stars vs just singletons? Nah ... all the M dwarfs in a galaxy as close as M87, collectively, are not visible

Now, about gas/plasma, dust ...
JeanTate
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
All of the Sun's gravity is accounted accounted for by it's visible mass, that's an observation
And all of the gravity of a rich cluster such Coma (one of the closest, by the way) is NOT accounted for by the visible mass of stars in its galaxies, not even if all the invisible stars are counted.

How much does it fall short? The estimated mass of galaxies in a rich cluster - including or excluding the estimated CDM component - is less than 20% of the estimated total mass of such a cluster.

That's just an observation.

And who first discovered this? Fritz Zwicky. When? In ~1933 (source: http://articles.a...00.html) I'm really quite surprised you appear to have not known these parts of Astronomy 101, Benni ...
JeanTate
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2015
@Ren82:
There is no interdependence between the standard model and the big bang theory

"I've got a couple of grad-level textbooks on my bookshelf which say you're wrong. Whatever, how about Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow (1948)? Here's a link: http://journals.a...v.73.803"

What kind of argument is this? One hypothesis or theory is credible because someone said or claim something?
No.

BB cosmological models include the origin of elements. The 'alpha-beta-gamma' ('ABC') paper is the first on this topic (AFAIK). The physics which ABC used has subsequently been developed, and its descendent (for this part of BB cosmology) is called the Standard Model (of particle physics); upper case 'S' and 'M'.

This is Cosmology 101, and I must say I'm surprised that you seem unfamiliar with it, Ren82

By the way, how's your study of the Pound+Rebka experiment progressing? Are those results fully consistent with General Relativity?
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
@docile:
Write some peer-reviewed publication about it, let it become a mainstream and return back here, after then.
Why would I want to do that? It's not like there aren't hundreds, possibly thousands, of just such papers already published ... perhaps I could cite a handful for you?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
All of the Sun's gravity is accounted accounted for by it's visible mass, that's an observation


And all of the gravity of a rich cluster such Coma is NOT accounted for by the visible mass of stars in its galaxies, not even if all the invisible stars are counted


Oh, you've been out there poking in behind all the unknown dust lanes & nonvisible stars & figured out the observed lensing cannot be caused by the estimated mass viewed in somebody's telescope?

How much does it fall short? The estimated mass of galaxies in a rich cluster - including or excluding the estimated CDM component - is less than 20% of the estimated total mass of such a cluster


How do you know it's < 20% of the mass needed and how do you know this cluster is not occluding another cluster right behind it & what you're looking at is a case of serial lensing & not missing mass? And why does your vaunted observational measuring technique not also apply to the gravity/mass of our Sun?

JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni: You ask some good questions; however, you're ~3 decades behind the relevant astronomy (etc)
Oh, you've been out there poking in behind all the unknown dust lanes & nonvisible stars & figured out the observed lensing cannot be caused by the estimated mass viewed in somebody's telescope?
Not much lensing observed in the Coma cluster
How do you know it's < 20% of the mass needed and how do you know this cluster is not occluding another cluster right behind it & what you're looking at is a case of serial lensing & not missing mass?
"Lensing", per GR, is well-understood. Lenses/lensed objects are 'hot items' for astronomers, and lots of telescope time is devoted to finding and studying them. However, perhaps by 'lensing' you mean something other than the GR variety? If so, what, may I ask?
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni (continued):
And why does your vaunted observational measuring technique not also apply to the gravity/mass of our Sun?
It does also apply to the Sun

In fact, the technique Zwicky used to estimate the total mass of the Coma cluster (within a certain radius) is the same one used to estimate the mass of the Sun, from observations of planets' orbits (you just have to do some straight-forward algebra, to deal with the fact that what you observe is a little different in each case)

But, again, this is Astronomy 101 (or perhaps 201); I'm really quite surprised you seem ignorant of it, Benni
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
And why does your vaunted observational measuring technique not also apply to the gravity/mass of our Sun?
It does also apply to the Sun
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe? I'm surprised you can't figure out that simple math. Trust me, I know Astronomy 101 won't help anyone trying to figure out why your funny farm science math will never answer the so-called deficit conundrum.

mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
Explanation requires no scientific skill, but only a credulous audience.

You will not find a credulous audience on this blog.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
"I suggest you missed the observations. You are welcome to put forward a different explanation of them, but be warned: this requires actual knowledge and skills."

What observations we have? Be more specific if you can.

I cannot educate an unwilling person who knows nothing. Read something on astronomy.
Skip your bible lessons for one day.
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
The legislator and supreme sovereign of the universe. Reasonable Being and great person. The source of truth and love in this universe.

Aha, you know him personally.
JeanTate
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?
Physics 101 this time.

The orbit of the Moon, around the Earth, would be the same (short-term, to a high degree of approximation) if the Earth's mass were squashed down to a ball of radius 1 mm (say), or blown up to a low-density cloud of radius ~200k km (say). The Moon's orbit constrains the 'contained' mass, not its distribution; this result is due to Newton, and is a consequence of (Newtonian) gravity's distance-inverse-square relationship
Trust me, I know Astronomy 101
Actually, I don't (trust what you say), and increasingly I think you are making stuff up as you go along ...
your funny farm science math
It's not mine; it's Newton's (in this case) ... strange that you didn't already know this ...
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


The orbit of the Moon, around the Earth, would be the same (short-term, to a high degree of approximation) if the Earth's mass were squashed down to a ball of radius 1 mm (say), or blown up to a low-density cloud of radius ~200k km (say). The Moon's orbit constrains the 'contained' mass, not its distribution; this result is due to Newton, and is a consequence of (Newtonian) gravity's distance-inverse-square relationship
That's quite a word salad....Just how does it relate to 99% of the Universe being missing?

Trust me, I don't trust what you say, and increasingly you simply continue making stuff up as you go along. I know this to be true because mass/gravity calculations of our Sun & everything else in the solar system add up exactly to the visible masses we observe for the gravity fields they exert.
docile
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2015
Benni,
...mass/gravity calculations of our Sun & everything else in the solar system add up exactly to the visible masses we observe for the gravity fields they exert.


There are many reasons to doubt the existence of DM, but your observation is perhaps the single most important one. The movements of bodies in our solar system can be computed with great accuracy without the addition of DM. If DM existed in our solar system to any appreciable extent, we would have to make our calculations with DM.

How do we suppose that DM is ubiquitous throughout the universe and necessary for the distribution and movements of mass in the universe when not a single microgram of the stuff can be found in our solar system?

JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
That's quite a word salad....Just how does it relate to 99% of the Universe being missing?
Well, it involves numbers, calculations, algebra, etc, just as the estimation of the mass of the Sun does. But if you are unwilling or unable to consider the quantitative aspect of science (astronomy in this case), we have little more to discuss, you and I, right?
I know this to be true because mass/gravity calculations of our Sun & everything else in the solar system add up exactly to the visible masses we observe for the gravity fields they exert
How do you know that, may I ask? Did you take the data and 'do the numbers'?

But let me ask you this: Suppose you have at your disposal all the data ever, from astronomical observations; suppose you have all the worlds telescopes etc at your disposal; etc.

What research program would you undertake, to show that ~all the mass in the universe is visible? Please be as specific and detailed as you can
JeanTate
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2015
@dogbert:
If DM existed in our solar system to any appreciable extent, we would have to make our calculations with DM
Yep, spot on!
How do we suppose that DM is ubiquitous throughout the universe and necessary for the distribution and movements of mass in the universe when not a single microgram of the stuff can be found in our solar system?
More like many trillion tonnes, but hey, what's a factor of 10^21 eh? It's just a number.

More seriously, the estimated CDM in our solar system is far too small to be detected using the technique Benni likes; it becomes the dominant form of mass only on very large scales, because it is so diffuse. It's often difficult to keep in mind just how astonishingly small our solar system is, when compared with just the Milky Way galaxy, let alone the observable universe.

Don't believe me? Do your own calculations!
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
@ Benni
"Trust me, I don't trust what you say, and increasingly you simply continue making stuff up as you go along."
Use your own words, use your own brains. That is what science is about.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


That's quite a word salad.... [\q]
That is in fact high school physics. Too complex ?
wenkl2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2015
This "music of the spheres" concept is as old as time itself. Even the Bible records the heavens declaring the glory of God and Creation sings His praises. Science is getting back to the foundations of the universe the Creator set in motion. We who have faith in the unseen do not need proof, but it is great to see the Creation revealed through observations in science.
JeanTate
3 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2015
@wenkl2:
We who have faith in the unseen do not need proof
Riiight ... so why are you writing comments here, given that your approach is avowedly anti-science?

To be clear: if it were up to you, you'd immediately cancel all astronomy projects, dismantle all observatories, destroy all repositories of astronomical data (past observations), etc ... have I got it right?
wenkl2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
Who created the creator?


Why would a being who could conceive the entire universe and all the laws that govern it need to be created? Time is not an eternal concept. Only beings who have a birth and death use it to keep track of sequential events. A Creator is eternal and timeless. Energy and matter are equivalent, as Einstein showed in E=Mc2. An omnipotent Creator is omnipresent outside our time concept and therefore also omniscient. We see "through a glass darkly" until we see God in all things.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


That's quite a word salad....

That is in fact high school physics. Too complex ?


......and you like JT are in the same camp of Funny Farm Science that 99% of our Sun is missing even though you can't come up with the excess gravity as evidence for it. Instead you peer off into farflung corners of the Universe, where there's no hope for man to ever visit, you declare yourselves self appointed experts in anything & everything you can't prove while invoking "high school physics" as your sources. I had nuclear physics during my six years in Engineering School, I'm very sure that's far beyond what you & JT had in high school.

You two need to collaborate, write a paper, get it published & out for peer review as you try to convince the public they cannot see 99% of everything they are looking at
BongBong
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
우주를 우주로 보지말고
우주를 원자 한개로 보고 연구하면
답이 나오지 않을까?
원자가 쪼개져서 핵분열을 하듯이
빅뱅도 그런 핵분열이라 생각하면 될듯하다
우주의 끝이 원자와 원자 사이의 중간이라 보면
맞는 표현이라 생각한다.
translate.google.com---------------------------------
Do not see the universe in space
If you see the universe as a single atom research
The answer might come out?
As the fissile atoms are broken up
Big Bang also appears to be if you think that nuclear fission
In the end of the universe it is called midway between atoms and atoms
I think it 's appropriate representation.
verkle
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
More seriously, the estimated CDM in our solar system is far too small to be detected using the technique Benni likes; it becomes the dominant form of mass only on very large scales, because it is so diffuse.


If DM constitutes 76% of the mass in the Universe, by extension it should constitute 76% of the mass in our solar system. And now we have returned full circle to the conversation on scalabilty, how can it be so "diffuse" on any scale (being that it constitutes such a large percentage of the mass of the Universe) that it not be detectable? Seems rather convenient that it be just where the "models" need it to be.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
Many know the phrase "the big bang theory...
Created by atheists to try to replace God.

Verkle, it's been pointed out numerous times here that the BB was NOT created by athiests. The "father" of the BB was the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, and has also been pointed out he had religious motivations. As Hannes Alfven remarked;
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." He continued;
"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth (or math) that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
Whether 5,000 or 13.7 billion years ago, it is still a creation story.
brad_210000
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2015
"Who created bosons, fermions and natural laws? If they can appear spontaneously, why can't a creator appear spontaneously?"

If bosons, fermions and natural laws can appear spontaneously, who needs a creator?


Yeah, but the point is "can something appear spontaneously?" And it if can, so can a creator. Simple logic!

Just because Occam's razor doesn't allow you to "need" something that is not "needed" doesn't make it a law.

Stop me when this gets too complicated for you.
docile
Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2015
@Benni:
......and you like JT are in the same camp of Funny Farm Science that 99% of our Sun is missing even though you can't come up with the excess gravity as evidence for it
What observational research program would you undertake, using any combo of the world's telescopes etc, to 'make visible' the billions of red dwarf stars in M87? Or even M32?
You two need to collaborate, write a paper, get it published & out for peer review as you try to convince the public they cannot see 99% of everything they are looking at
Oh I think 'the public' is pretty convinced; you, on the other hand ...
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2015
@verkle:
It [the big bang theory] is just a theory. And a very poor one at that. Created by atheists to try to replace God
I guess you've not read much history, much less astronomy, eh verkle?

May I ask, does your religion make you ignorant (of history, and astronomy)? Does your religion forbid you to learn mathematics?
JeanTate
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
If DM constitutes 76% of the mass in the Universe, by extension it should constitute 76% of the mass in our solar system
Let's see now ... if the universe is 99% plasma, by extension it should constitute 99% of my breakfast cereal ...
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
Whether 5,000 or 13.7 billion years ago, it is still a creation story
Amazing, isn't it?

Just how astonishing the range of experimental and observational results are consistent with the "creation story", and just how few are not (once one makes the inevitable correction that the BB theory does not 'do' creation; why oh why do you persist in being so willfully ignorant, cd?)
ThomasQuinn
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
Many know the phrase "the big bang theory....


I would think that everyone on this forum knows this phrase. It is just a theory. And a very poor one at that. Created by atheists to try to replace God.



Ah. I didn't know Belgian priests who work at the Catholic University of Louvain were atheists.

Seems you've become entirely self-sufficient: you don't even need others to demonstrate how ignorant you are anymore.
DavidTheShepherd
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2015
@Jean_Tate:
Seeing that you have such firm answers to everything, I thought you might be able to help out with a few questions about this theory that still bugs me:

1. After all the extrapolation has been done and scientists arrived at the singularity, what is the explanation for how all matter and energy was concentrated in there or came into existence from that singularity. in fact what exactly is the mathematical and physical definition of a singularity?
2. What started off this inflation? And what brought it to an end?
3. Whilst the universe and its constituent matter was expanding away from each other, just how did the first star(s) form? What provided the density and most importantly the trigger for fusion to start before any other stars existed?
4. How do planets form from dust and rocks when we know that colliding rocks to not stick together, much less in the vacuum of space?
5. Why do really early galaxies look so much like all other ones?
Many more bugs.....

JeanTate
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2015
@DavidTheShepherd:
Seeing that you have such firm answers to everything
I don't
I thought you might be able to help out with a few questions about this theory that still bugs me
Happy to try
After all the extrapolation has been done and scientists arrived at the singularity
They didn't; there is no theory which 'reduces to' GR and some QFT 'in the limits', so what happens in the Planck regime - infinitely before any 'singularity' - is unknown
what is the explanation for how all matter and energy was concentrated in there or came into existence from that singularity
It didn't; GR and quantum theory are mutually inconsistent, at a fundamental level; this inconsistency becomes intolerable in the Planck regime, which is infinitely distanct (time, space) from any singularity. It's a popsci myth that the universe began at/with a singularity
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
(continued)
2. What started off this inflation? And what brought it to an end?
Open questions, and hard to see how much progress will be made, in the near future
3. Whilst the universe and its constituent matter was expanding away from each other, just how did the first star(s) form? What provided the density and most importantly the trigger for fusion to start before any other stars existed?
This is difficult to explain clearly, without the math; there are density fluctuations in the primordial mass distribution, local peaks can self-gravitate, and baryons can form stars ... once the universe ceased to be 'radiation dominated' (i.e. after the surface of last scattering, at z ~1100)
4. How do planets form from dust and rocks when we know that colliding rocks to not stick together, much less in the vacuum of space?
Because they do (stick together); not all collisions are high speed, a great many happen at very low speeds
JeanTate
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
(continued)
5. Why do really early galaxies look so much like all other ones?
They don't. As a zooite - citizen scientist who has participated in a Zooniverse project - I got to look at images of hundreds of 'early galaxies'; they look almost nothing like those 'locally' (i.e. imaged by SDSS). Of course, a roundish blob is a roundish blob, and some galaxies - both 'really early' and local - look like roundish blobs; this similarity in morphology has no more significance than the fact that coins look like oranges look like the Sun.

More questions? Sorry for being terse, but 1k chars is pretty limiting
JeanTate
3.4 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2015
@Benni and cantdrive85("cd"): Benni, cd claims that the universe is ~90-99.9% plasma (I forget the exact number); you are deeply troubled by parts of the universe which have not been 'seen', such as red dwarf stars in galaxies beyond the Local Group, and planets orbiting stars in our own galaxy (with a handful of exceptions)

Yet ~90-99% of all the plasma cd is so fond of is also 'invisible'! :-O
[Benni] Just how does it relate to 99% of the Universe being missing?
Maybe cd would like to have a go at answering your (good) question ...
docile
Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2015
@docile:
They do
From your source: "The vast majority of galaxies seen in the early universe are young and actively forming stars". So, no, really early galaxies do not look much like all the others
The Zoouniverse project doesn't expose any data about galaxies reviewed
Oh? That's news to me (and ~100k other zooites) ...
[Galaxy Zoo blog post] We're delighted to announce that we have some new images on Galaxy Zoo for you to classify! There are two sets of new images:

1. Galaxies from the CANDELS survey

2. Galaxies from the GOODS survey
A particularly interesting blog post is "CANDELS: The new data in Galaxy Zoo" http://blog.galax...s-intro/

More; from your source: "The galaxies were discovered [...] and combined with data from Hubble's Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey and the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey" i.e. CANDELS and GOODS, just what zooites got to classify ...
swordsman
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2015
A new form of dark matter that is repulsive? I am sure that Einstein would have thought this idea to be "repulsive".

None of these new cosmological ideas make much sense and are uncorrelated.
docile
Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2015
http://www.galaxy...classify - and just from the same reason, for which you're trolling here: for to prohibit the malicious/religious people to bias the results by information provided...
Wow! Just wow.

The link you included is to the *current* iteration of GZ; its transition was announced on 13 May this year: "Thanks for everyone's help on the recent push with the Hubble CANDELS and GOODS images. I'm happy to say that we've just completed the full set" (source: http://blog.galax...niverse/ ). There have been at least two sets of CANDELS and at least three of GOODS images in GZ, and some from COSMOS too (IIRC). And there have been papers published using zooites' CANDELS classifications (e.g. http://arxiv.org/...09.1214 )
;-)
Got it ;-)
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2015
Why would a being who could conceive the entire universe and all the laws that govern it need to be created? Time is not an eternal concept. Only beings who have a birth and death use it to keep track of sequential events. A Creator is eternal and timeless. Energy and matter are equivalent, as Einstein showed in E=Mc2. An omnipotent Creator is omnipresent outside our time concept and therefore also omniscient. We see "through a glass darkly" until we see God in all things.

Indeed why would someone who knows everything from a book, without ever using his brains, and is a personal favourite of the omnipotent creator of everything (after a life of stalking) need science. No, such a know it all looks down on science.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2015
Many know the phrase "the big bang theory....


I would think that everyone on this forum knows this phrase. It is just a theory. And a very poor one at that. Created by atheists to try to replace God.


A Jesuit yes.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
If DM constitutes 76% of the mass in the Universe, by extension it should constitute 76% of the mass in our solar system

Let's see now ... if the universe is 99% plasma, by extension it should constitute 99% of my breakfast cereal ...

Quite the moronic statement, and a pathetic dodge of the question.
Why no DM in the Sol's cereal bowl? DM repellent perhaps? I know, the solar wind is the repellent.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
Quite the moronic statement, and a pathetic dodge of the question
Au contraire ... you know very well why very little CDM is expected in the solar system, yet you (deliberately?) chose to create a strawman; I know very well why my breakfast cereal is expected to contain very little plasma, but I deliberately chose to create a strawman.

Call it the duel of the strawmen ;-)
Why no DM in the Sol's cereal bowl?
Not none, just very little (comparatively speaking). CDM, because it 'feels' only gravity, cannot 'clump', so its density is very low, everywhere in the universe
DM repellent perhaps? I know, the solar wind is the repellent
CDM and the solar wind interact negligibly ... the solar wind has so little mass compared with the Sun, and CDM 'feels' only mass (via gravity)
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2015
@cd
The "moronic statement" was made to show the error in your own reasoning.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2015
Nevertheless it is interesting to ask what the effect of the sun can be on local DM.
I see no reason why not a substantial amount of DM can have been captured by the sun's gravitational field.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about that links list we discussed. Been very busy with more pressing matters. I'll try to get to it in a few days. :)

PS: I just saw your standard model BB-&-Dark-Matter explanation re DM density distributions/fluctuations etc. I would be interested to see your explanation for why in early BB stages (when first 'stars' were huge and allegedly close together) DM was not 'hoovered up' into the stellar-strong gravity wells all around whichever way the DM moved/fluctuated? If your explanation as to how DM behaves due to gravity (including self-gravity when fluctuations form clumps) is true, then any first ordinary matter stellar clumps would automatically start feedback loops which would be even stronger in huge stellar clumps. So those first ordinary matter clumps would set the pattern for where all DM matter would 'go' into stellar gravity wells (because DM is NOT repulsed by E-M 'Radiation Pressure')? Cheers.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2015
DM only interacts gravitationally, so if it falls into a stellar gravity well, it will just emerge on the other side with minimal loss of kinetic energy. It is rather that ordinary matter falls into DM gravitational wells.
But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :) Thanks for your response.
DM only interacts gravitationally, so if it falls into a stellar gravity well, it will just emerge on the other side with minimal loss of kinetic energy. It is rather that ordinary matter falls into DM gravitational wells.
But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?
I already considered that angle. The problem arises when the DM density/ubiquity was so cheek-by-jowl with itself and ordinary matter. A huge stellar gravity well would draw in DM from all radials and any instantaneous concentration at its central location would increase manyfold the stellar matters own gravity well, which the DM already within the stronger well would not climb out of as easily as it would a gravity well which remains the same strength. That's what I meant by 'feedback loop', not only in DM concentration process but also in ordinary matter concentration process involving strengthening gravity wells. Cheers.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2015
Au contraire ... you know very well why very little CDM is expected in the solar system, yet you (deliberately?) chose to create a strawman


Au contraire mon frère (or sœur), I don't know. Recall I'm "willfully ignorant" of pseudoscience BS, as such DM nonsense. The DM to baryonic ratio is 3 to 1, and the Universe is isotropic. If it doesn't clump, then "by extension" the expectation should be 3 to 1 everywhere including in the solar system (although the ratio seems higher between your ears).
Also, you seem to have contradictory POV's, you say it doesn't clump. But in a different thread you claimed (via claims by "primary sources") that DM is responsible for the filamentary nature of the Universe, because it collapses upon itself. Which is it? Or does it do it all, just as is needed to explain gravity is all that is needed for your cosmology? That's some magical stuff you believe in...
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2015
DM only interacts gravitationally, so if it falls into a stellar gravity well, it will just emerge on the other side with minimal loss of kinetic energy. It is rather that ordinary matter falls into DM gravitational wells.
But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?

Where exactly is the "other side" of the Sol's "gravity well"? Where does all this stuff appear when it falls out the "other side"? Where is the "other side" of a DM "gravitational well"? And if DM cannot clump, how does it form a "gravitational well"? Shouldn't the DM "gravity well" be like a kiddie pool and be of an equal ankle depth everywhere? Do we need to name classify DM "gravitational wells" as "gravitational kiddie pool...wells"? And do the unicorns that wade through the "gravitational kiddie pool...wells" pee in them too?
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
The DM to baryonic ratio is 3 to 1, and the Universe is isotropic. If it doesn't clump, then "by extension" the expectation should be 3 to 1 everywhere including in the solar system
No. At the scale of the solar system, the universe is nowhere near isotropic. The solar system has a baryonic density far in excess of the average, even for the Milky Way galaxy (itself more dense than average).

Assume one star (Sun, for now) per cubic pc, let's do some numbers: solar system volume ~40,000 au^3, or ~4x10^-12 pc^3; so the average density of the solar system is ~3x10^11 greater than the average density of this part of the MW. 3:1 ratio -> ~10^18 kg of CDM in the solar system ... which is ~the mass of a mid-sized asteroid (please check my arithmetic, I think I made a mistake)
JeanTate
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
@cd (continued)
you say it doesn't clump. But in a different thread you claimed (via claims by "primary sources") that DM is responsible for the filamentary nature of the Universe, because it collapses upon itself
Well, not quite what I said or what the primary sources say, but a close enough approximation for here&now
Which is it? Or does it do it all
Again, it's a question of scale ... the solar system is so insignificantly small compared with the scale of the CDM filaments that have likely formed so far ... and it is also insignificantly small compared with the filaments Herschel discovered
just as is needed to explain gravity is all that is needed for your cosmology?
If gravity is all you need, there'd be no huge overdensities like the solar system or Sun (or Earth); however, baryons can 'cool' when they clump (CDM can't), which leads to 'gravitational collapse' (can't happen to CDM, at least not in a mere ~10 billion years)
JeanTate
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
Where exactly is the "other side" of the Sol's "gravity well"? Where does all this stuff appear when it falls out the "other side"? Where is the "other side" of a DM "gravitational well"?
It's like the 'tunnel through the center of the Earth and out the other side': for a spherically symmetric, non-rotating Earth, and a 'perfect vacuum' tunnel, you drop a stone in at one end, it appears at the other end, and oscillates back and forth forever
And if DM cannot clump, how does it form a "gravitational well"?
[mytwocts] But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?
Both excellent questions!

The simulations - such as Millennium - assume a CDM density distribution consistent with the CMB, at z~1100; they then let gravity take its course (in a GR universe), and filaments emerge naturally within a quite short time (cosmologically speaking).

But how did the CMB come to have its observed 'density distribution'?
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2015

The simulations - such as Millennium - assume a CDM density distribution consistent with the CMB, at z~1100; they then let gravity take its course (in a GR universe), and filaments emerge naturally within a quite short time (cosmologically speaking).

Is the present structure still evolving at cosmologically short time scale according to these simulations? Also, gravitational collapse requires loss of kinetic energy. Ordinary matter will emit radiation or elementary particles. How did the initial DM cool ?
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2015
If gravity is all you need, there'd be no huge overdensities like the solar system or Sun (or Earth); however, baryons can 'cool' when they clump (CDM can't), which leads to 'gravitational collapse' (can't happen to CDM, at least not in a mere ~10 billion years)

I'm gonna go seriously sci-fi here - just for the heck of it:
If the interaction of CDM with itself is not nil (just very very tiny), then might we not see an evolution of matter in the universe similar to that of 'ordinary' matter for CDM on a much vaster timescale? Including CDM 'galactic discs' - and possibly even CDM black holes (probably nothing as shiny as CDM stars, though).

Could CDM black holes already have formed by mere chance (and if they can - would this be observable as a skew of BH size-frequency towards smaller BHs (as a CDM BH should not be distinguishable from a 'regular' one)?

OK...I'll lay off the meds, now. Back to your usual program.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
[cd] and the Universe is isotropic
[me] At the scale of the solar system, the universe is nowhere near isotropic
While both statements are correct at some level, I think the term we should both have used, in context, is 'homogeneous'.
JeanTate
3 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2015
@docile:
the nested dodecahedrons [link: http://i.imgur.com/TIlDG7Z.gif ]are visible on the sky in CMBR fluctuations [link: http://i.imgur.com/u1O3U5O.gif ]
Sorry, but I can't see that, in the two GIF images in the links. Do you have a reference to some analysis which shows this "nested dodecahedrons" pattern is consistent, quantitatively, with the published Planck data?
because the astronomers believe, that the larger structures the CMBR get, the more they're distant in time
I do not understand this; would you mind explaining it in more detail please?
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
@mytwocts:
Also, gravitational collapse requires loss of kinetic energy. Ordinary matter will emit radiation or elementary particles.
CDM can, in fact, clump, even on quite small scales, and even in the absence of baryonic matter! And it does so by a process not really like that which produces filaments (per simulations).

An imperfect analogy is the stars in globular clusters; they are 'point masses' to a good approximation, and interact via gravity only. Over time, 'gravity' will cause the stars to segregate by mass, 'heavier' ones in the center, 'lighter' ones outside (or even expelled). Binaries play a key role; more generally, 'close encounters' cause the system to 'relax'. However, the timeframe for this to produce noticable effects (for CDM) is vastly longer than 10 billion years ...
How did the initial DM cool?
It hasn't, really; the z~1100 distribution is a very long way from being 'relaxed'. How did the CMB density distribution arise?
JeanTate
3 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2015
@aap:
If the interaction of CDM with itself is not nil (just very very tiny), then might we not see an evolution of matter in the universe similar to that of 'ordinary' matter for CDM on a much vaster timescale? Including CDM 'galactic discs' - and possibly even CDM black holes (probably nothing as shiny as CDM stars, though)
Yes (I assume you are referring to 'non-gravity' self CDM interactions). Details matter, of course; the nature of the interaction may not lead to 'CDM BHs' (for example)
Could CDM black holes already have formed by mere chance
Perhaps not 'by mere chance', but by processes in the early/high energy universe. Of course, a BH retains no 'memory' of being once CDM, baryons, or anything else
(and if they can - would this be observable as a skew of BH size-frequency towards smaller BHs (as a CDM BH should not be distinguishable from a 'regular' one)?
Unlikely ... why would CDM BHs have any particular mass distribution?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2015
why would CDM BHs have any particular mass distribution?

I was thinking (well: knee-jerking) in terms of formation process.

Where 'normal matter' BHs grow via accretion discs any CDM BHs that have currently already formed would not grow via such an accretion disc (as CDM does not interact that much and thus we do not get the friction dynamic). It would merely grow by 'chance encounters' with more CDM or ordinary mass. So the average CDM BH should be smaller than the average normal CDM...which in turn would skew the currently expected BH distribution towards the small end.

Perhaps not 'by mere chance'

One could (probably) calculate the probability of clouds passing through each other to get a 'lucky' critical density in one place. With there beind such a lot more CDM than ordinary matter that probability should be higher. But yeah. Earl universe seems the most likely place/time for such CDM BH formation.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
@docile:
Check the "dodecahedron Universe" models
Thanks!

I started with J-P Luminet+ (2003) (Nature 425 593), and papers citing it. The most pertinent seems to be "Planck 2013 results. XXVI. Background geometry and topology of the Universe" (preprint arXiv:1303.5086v2); from the paper's abstract:
This allows us to detect possible departures from the standard model of a globally homogeneous and isotropic cosmology on the largest scales. We search for correlations induced by a possible non-trivial topology with a fundamental domain intersecting, or nearly intersecting, the last scattering surface ... both via a direct search for matched circular patterns at the intersections and by an optimal likelihood search for specific topologies. For the latter we consider [...] three multi-connected spaces of constant positive curvature (dodecahedral ...) These searches yield no detection of the compact topology with the scale below the diameter of the last scattering surface
JeanTate
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
(continued)
Which is why we can find both standing waves, both packed particle geometries inside of CMBR noise
Except that the Planck Collaboration apparently did not find any such!

But perhaps I missed papers which do report finding these, in the Planck data?
docile
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2015
You should seriously improve your knowledge of phenomenology: no knowledge of data means no ideas about their possible connections and the well minded tendency to deny every proposal of such a connection. Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton would deny most of insights presented here, simply because they couldn't know what we already know today. Lack of knowledge leads into pathological skepticism automatically.

Did you just really try to make a case for: lack of knowledge equaks wisdom - and should therfore be accepted unconditionally?

Wow, man...what are you smoking today?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2015
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
From docile: You should seriously improve your knowledge of phenomenology: no knowledge of data means no ideas about their possible connections and the well minded tendency to deny every proposal of such a connection. Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton would deny most of insights presented here, simply because they couldn't know what we already know today. Lack of knowledge leads into pathological skepticism automatically.

Did you just really try to make a case for: lack of knowledge equaks wisdom - and should therfore be accepted unconditionally?

Wow, man...what are you smoking today?
That's strange, antialias, I read that as saying the exact opposite of what you just implied. :)

That is, more knowledge of the whole phenomenology spectrum of possibilities which data then constrain/inform further....and voila'....you have a wider perspective on what may be happening, than one phenomenologically 'naive'.

docile?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2015
Could these universal contractions have something to do with the formation of super massive black holes?
Should we find particularly powerful quasars during that first crunch?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
CDM can, in fact, clump, even on quite small scales, and even in the absence of baryonic matter! And it does so by a process not really like that which produces filaments (per simulations).
... the timeframe for this to produce noticable effects (for CDM) is vastly longer than 10 billion years ...

So gravitational thermalisation does not occur. By what (different) process were the filaments produced? What is the temperature of "Cold" DM ?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
Except that the Planck Collaboration apparently did not find any such!
You should seriously improve your knowledge of phenomenology: no knowledge of data means no ideas about their possible connections and the well minded tendency to deny every proposal of such a connection. Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton would deny most of insights presented here, simply because they couldn't know what we already know today. Lack of knowledge leads into pathological skepticism automatically.

Word salad and innuendo.
Stick to reality. There is no such thing. It's a medieval concept.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
This hypothesis would be true if it was consistent with the physical reality in which we live. The visible universe is changing but it depends on the human spirit and faith.

Contradicting yourself within the space of two sentences? Not bad. Can you make it in one?

The deterioration of physical reality has a strong link with the moral decline of today's world. The spirit of love and truth gives life to the matter

...aaaand we're back in fairyland.

Seriously Ren: what are you even doing here? If your aim is to make yourself a laughingstock in the shortest possible time then I guess you have achieved your aim. Congratulations. Now go play outside - and leave the grownups to talk science, why don'tcha?
ThomasQuinn
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Really docile? Isaac Newton: 1642 - 1726/27. Middle Ages: approximately 405 or 476 - 1485/92/99. Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'. Newton's first published work dates from 1671. That's roughly 170 years after the latest reasonable date for the end of the Middle Ages.

docile, you are a complete f**king imbecile, and the best part is, you don't even need help to demonstrate that.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2015
@cantdrive85
What is a "creator" ?


Haven't watched the Lego movie, have you?
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2015
@AA,

OK...I'll lay off the meds, now. Back to your usual program.

> maybe take them more often. Your comment was almost open minded and imaginative.Then you went back to dribbling dogma in later comments. Good to know that on occasions you are not a total loss.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2015
@Steve 200mph Cruiz:
Could these universal contractions have something to do with the formation of super massive black holes?
I think it unlikely, certainly not directly, but it may be that the rate of formation of SMBHs is somehow tied to them (albeit only weakly)
Should we find particularly powerful quasars during that first crunch?
I don't think so ... but it should be easy enough to test, even using already published data on quasars ... can you think of how such a test might be done (outline)?
JeanTate
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
@mytwocts:
So gravitational thermalisation does not occur
Not sure what you mean here (could you clarify please?)
By what (different) process were the filaments produced?
It's (still) gravity, but it's not acting on isolated clumps (overdensities); rather, gravity acting on mass distributed in a particular way (the density distribution per the CMB) and in a GR universe (dominated by CDM, in the models). Such a universe is expanding, at a rate which varies with time ...
What is the temperature of "Cold" DM ?
I'm not sure, and don't remember if 'cold' refers explicitly to a definable temperature (rather than simply meaning 'the CDM particles do not move at relativistic speeds'). Good question!
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
@antialias_physorg: you started with the idea that the CDM may comprised of more than one type of particle, and/or that cross-sections for forces other than gravity may not be effectively zero.

Quite a bit of work has been done on these sorts of ideas, and the most recent edition of Scientific American has an article on implications of a particular set of such ideas. It's fascinating, not least because there seems to be good chance some of the ideas can be tested, using astronomical observations. And there are papers reporting the results of some of such observations.

And who knows? Maybe at the energy scale(s) that cause(s) CDM particles to be created - perhaps via a symmetry breaking that reflects a force as yet unknown! - the sorta equivalent of nucleogenesis led to the creation of mini-BHs, which later became the seeds of the SMBH at the heart of most galaxies today ...
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2015
@mytwocts:
So gravitational thermalisation does not occur
Not sure what you mean here (could you clarify please?)

I mean the exchange of kinetic energy through gravitational interaction until a thermal distribution is reached.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2015
@cantdrive85
What is a "creator" ?


Haven't watched the Lego movie, have you?

Enlighten me !
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2015
@mytwocts:
I mean the exchange of kinetic energy through gravitational interaction until a thermal distribution is reached
Thanks!

I got interested in this, and went searching and reading. I found that it's a bit more complicated, and there are some subtleties; a good, single page, resource I found is John Baez' "The Virial Theorem Made Easy" (link: http://math.ucr.e...ial.html ) ... note that, in a pure 'gravity only collapse', what's considered is the average kinetic energy; the distribution of particle speeds is not defined (or contrained?). For a gas (or plasma), the kinetic energy will be distributed, locally, into something like Maxwell-Boltzmann; but without 'collisions', how would a CDM 'gas' reach such a distribution? I don't know. Baez has another, very interesting/related, page, "Can Gravity Decrease Entropy?" (link: http://math.ucr.e...opy.html ).
JeanTate
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
(continued) So, closing the loop:
So gravitational thermalisation does not occur
Gravitational *relaxation* occurs, and the system reaches an equilibrium (there will be a 'cusp'), entropy does not decrease, the average kinetic energy increases ... but how well can the distribution of the kinetic energy of the particles be characterized by a single "temperature"? Irrespective of the actual distribution, can an average kinetic energy be uniquely associated with temperature?

Etc.

Great question, thanks for asking (I learned something new)!
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2015
(Gravitational *relaxation* occurs,

but at a timescale longer that the Hubble time if I understand your earlier statement correctly.
Maybe not a single temperature.
Just found this link http://www.hep.ph...eday.pdf about DM distributions. At about 70% of the slides: "Lack of thermalisation (Non-self interacting)".
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
@mytwocts:
but at a timescale longer that the Hubble time if I understand your earlier statement correctly
Yes, and sorry if I misunderstood what you were referring to (I took it as a general statement, not one relevant to the universe today)
Just found this link [http://www.hep.ph...eday.pdf ] about DM distributions
Cool! That shows very clearly that the velocity distribution of CDM is poorly constrained, for CDM 'now'; what's not in there is what that distribution will be, for an isolated blob of CDM, once it 'relaxes' (at some time vastly greater than 10 billion years)
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'.

I would side with the other guy. Medieval times are still here ! ;-)
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'.

I would side with the other guy. Medieval times are still here ! ;-)


You do realize that most clichés about "medieval times" are actually more applicable to the 16th century, right?
mytwocts
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'.

I would side with the other guy. Medieval times are still here ! ;-)


You do realize that most clichés about "medieval times" are actually more applicable to the 16th century, right?

I sincerely hope that you do realize that this form of debating is called a straw man, do you?
https://en.wikipe...traw_man
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
It seems pretty weird to try and turn my remark into an attempted straw man fallacy. But hey, you said "medieval times are still here", so weirdness levels are pretty high to begin with.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
It is not clear why different opinion worry you match after asking such questions?
renTROLL
it is not about differing opinion: it is about unsubstantiated conjectures and claims by trolls like you who suppose there is some infallibility to your religious beliefs which are based upon a FAITH which, by definition, is the belief in something without evidence...

this is a science site, not a religious forum where you can pontificate about the meaning of the 5 loaves of bread or the reason why everyone thinks there were only pairs of animals on Noah's boat when it obviously states otherwise in your bible

religious people can't even agree on their religion (which is why there are so many factions of christianity)

science is not the same: it is evidence based

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.