Oklahoma tornado death toll jumps to 91
Despite all the scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prizes for discoveries, scientists seem to be no nearer to a possible answer to their main question - why did the universe appear?
View full story
I'm curious, just how does gauge the infinite? Perhaps it would just be better to say we understand the scientific laws and principles of our world....claiming to understand 4% of the universe is like claiming to know the last number is the Pi sequence.
—continuing from previous comment:And, how big is the Universe and when did it start? —That question is irrelevant, at this stage but I do not know, and I suspect that nobody will ever know!So, what are those experiments at CERN, which so many people talk about, are good for?In a big R&D process like CERN, lots of experiments are made, and many new machines and technologies are created and scrapped and, eventually, good things will happen with the birth of new technologies for the benefit of humankind.The problem is that CERN—with its present group of member states is, under the pretext that they are searching for the so called initial subatomic particle which, in their opinion, gave rise to the Universe (in the so-called Big Bang)— are in fact looking for ways to develop new atomic weaponry and, what is worse, they are trying to lure Russia into this megalomaniac schema, not for the benefit of Russian people, but to rip Russian scientist off their nuclear knowhow. Imperialists are trying to lure Russia as an important ally against China and the rest of the World!So the CERN project is more like a real Catch & Grab game in the International Arena.What have they discovered lately? —… Probably some subatomic particle that already existed, or not; a whole new particle would have been created —in the last case.What is that good for? — It might be good to understand the exact relation between mass and energy, and how to convert mass into pure energy.Author: José Sousa Novais
—continuing from previous comment:As those fragments of astronomical dimensions are thrown away, they increase their distance from the BBM and, as a result of their interaction, they start forming more or less planner translation systems and, as they get closer to other stars or BBMs which (probably) were not involved in the previous BSCE, they get more speed; that is, the stellar system created on the BSCE continues to make part of the existing Universe but, as a result of the astronomical dimensions and the limitations of our measurement processes, we feel like being in a "Universe" that started at the BSCE and is limited by the front running fragments...—I believe that this our "little universe", that we all know something of, has started around fifteen billion years ago, is the result of a BSCE, as per my definition.BBMs, because they lost all their energy (by compaction) as they were born, are VERY BIG ENERGY SUCKERS, so they can, eventually, get an appearance and explode, when its energy capacity is exceeded; this can happen when other stars or galaxies collide with them, giving birth to other "universes"; it´s kind of a different BSCE.So, is our "universe", the one we know, finite? —Yes, it is and is expanding, but for different reasons from those explained by our scientists, as I have explained. Our small "universe", as we know it, is, in my opinion, just an infinitesimal part of the Universe itself.—continues on next comment.
Big Bang still a mystery for scientists...Here is what I think about the beginning of this Universe we all know, or that we think that we all know...:"Big Bang" and "Black Holes" versus BSCEs and BBMsThe "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" are concepts brought about by "modern scientists" in their quest for answers about the beginning of the Universe, I think.As stated by those scientists, there was one only Big Bang—"The Big Bang", and there are many "Black Holes".As far as I understand, those scientists don´t relate "The Big Bang" with the so-called "Black Holes"; as far as I understand from their conclusions, to them..., both concepts are totally independent from each other.It is my conviction that "The Big Bang" and "Black Holes", as defined by those scientists, have never existed and will never exist.Before stating my own theory, and because both those concepts —"Big Bang" and "Black Hole"—are meaningless, I replace them with two other concepts: BSCE—"Big Star Collision Event"—to replace "Big Bang", and BBM—"Big Black Mass"—to replace "Black Hole"; by my definition, almost invariably, every time a BSCE happens, a BBM is formed.So, what is a BSCE? —BSCE is a big star collision event; it happens when two or more big stars, of the same or different galaxies, collide violently. This events can happen as simple collisions or as a sequence of collisions in a more or less long period of time, mainly when it involves two or more galaxies.And, what is the result of a BSCE? —The result of a BSCE is, first of all, the formation of a BBM—an extremely dense mass at the center of collision, usually of astronomical dimensions, with extreme gravity, from which all energy has been expelled by compaction, violently throwing away all fragments which resulted from the collision, in directions according to the reactions to the resultant of the forces involved — just classic mechanics. To explain other effects, you might need quantic concepts, though.—continues on next comment.
"Scientists" don't even understand why their daily pooop even smells different each time, let alone "4% of the Universe". Get real. "Scientists" don't even understand one gazillionth of one percent of the Universe.
It is plainly obvious that no "scientist" made this statement, if they did they should not consider themselves one. I am not a scientist, yet I know that the universe and "space" is infinite therefore cannot be guaged or measured in any such way known to man. To make a statement as frivilous as this is to say that they actually know no more than 0% of anything related to the universe. Troll is unfortunately successful
zizenn (unregistered) wrote in #4
Indeed, science does not attempt to (in fact could not) answer "Why". It tries to explain What, When, Where and How. Perhaps religions have been specifically created to deliberate the Why. (btt1943, zz1943)
W hy there should be a why? Why is for living things, and generally has to do with survival. Why lion eat sheep, because it needs to survive. Why a man loves a women, because he want to survive. Why animal kills another animal, because it wants to increase his chance of survival, etc.But why negative electric charge repel negative electric charge? Do they really do that all over universe or just close by? Why positive electric charge attracts negative electric charge? Is there a purpose to this? What or who's interest is advanced by electrons repelling each other? Is there an intelligence behind this? And if so, what is the purpose of that intelligence? To make more money! -:) To make things for its survival? To entertain itself? Does that intelligence has needs, to have a purpose? For example, it needs to entertain itself?If you think about these questions carefully, you realize there is no ultimate why. Why comes from a need, to give purpose to things. When there is no need, there is no purpose. There are just what, where, how, and when.
I find the book “The Origin of the Universe – Case Closed”
to be compelling. It has easy to follow
math in the Appendix to back up its claims. It is hard to argue with math! It’s easy to follow with many pictures.
This barely-articulate clown is a Nobel laureate? Oh well so is Barack Obama, talk about a race to the bottom!It seems that the best answer he can give is that the present universe came out of a pre-existing universe - it's turtles all the way down to him.If I were the interviewer, I would have asked him about the electric universe theory, which does not require black holes, dark energy, dark matter, or any other voodoo cosmology.And if I were the interviewer, I would have stuck to Russian, or taken speech lessons from people who speak standard English, not the valley girl mishmash she probably threw away good money on.
...I don't have a problem with scientists trying to claim they understand components of our existence...but 1%...4%...a percentage of what? It is "the context" thing that no one will ever be able to explain...thus the rush to religion all the damned time....! Even if someone proved the existence of some spiritual being...a God so to speak...no one deals with the issue of that creature's existence...where did the "god" come from?...oh,I forgot...I'm supposed to accept... "He, who has always been"...or some such malarkey...in fact, it is the same type of malarkey the scientists want us to accept...to a degree...?...in what context does it all exist?...answer that... then you will have answered the primary question worth asking...Regards ,RJ O'GuilloryAuthor-Web ster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family
Universe is electric in nature, google "electric universe". And electricity is one thing we use daily, still we don't understand its dynamics in the big picture. And these people call themselves scientists. They are mathematicians - just to make a equation where lhs = rhs is all about doing mathematics, and not physics. But the hypocrite noble prize winners are happy inside their mathematically perfect theorems and hypothesis that helps explain the statistical errors, however large.
So there we have it, clear as mud! The man hasn't a clue, but at least he's an intellectual!
So when scientist figure out 99.9% of the universe will they look at the 00.1% they've neglected and realize there is a higher power or will they just waste there life's convincing themselves 's that there isn't a god and ruining the religions of the world because they refuse to believe in spirit.scientific atheism is a miracle to me and how they really have more faith then a believe does in that they believe the big bang from nothing then the evolution theory then the laws of science and still don't believe in a higher power for all these beautiful things
The response for the Big Bang is evasive, replaced by quantum fluctuation which seems equally elusive.Indeed, science does not attempt to (in fact could not) answer "Why". It tries to explain What, When, Where and How. Perhaps religions have been specifically created to deliberate the Why. (btt1943, zz1943)
It's good that our species do not know much about the Universe. Had they known a little more than what they know about the earth, Universe would be in the same fate as our mother nature. Most men are self-serving and desire only destruction.
So RT is run by religious people who try to undermine science? How infantile and primitive.I thought RT was better than this.
I have always been taught that the Prime Premise of Science is that "We already know all there is to know, and can explain everything."Exit Galileo, Enter the Religion of Science.
By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules
Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.
To complete a registration check
A password has been sent to your email address
Retype new password
Traveling space telescope to stretch limits of human knowledge
Mystery code in the solar wind
Mysterious dark energy helps universe expand
Earth being bombarded by dark matter
Broken for the big day: 'Big Bang' collider unveiled
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2013. All rights reserved.