• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

This is an interesting explanation for the history of our universe.

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This article does well describing the current knowledge of the history of our universe, and the questions and misconceptions involved.

From: Cosmology's Only Big Problems Are Manufactured Misunderstandings

Cosmology's Only Big Problems Are Manufactured Misunderstandings

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F04%2FNo-dark-matter-ultra-diffuse.jpg

This large, fuzzy-looking galaxy is so diffuse that astronomers call it a “see-through” galaxy because they can clearly see distant galaxies behind it. The ghostly object, catalogued as NGC 1052-DF2, doesn’t have a noticeable central region, or even spiral arms and a disk, typical features of a spiral galaxy. But it doesn’t look like an elliptical galaxy, either, as its velocity dispersion is all wrong. Even its globular clusters are oddballs: they are twice as large as typical stellar groupings seen in other galaxies. All of these oddities pale in comparison to the weirdest aspect of this galaxy: NGC 1052-DF2 is very controversial because of its apparent lack of dark matter. This could solve an enormous cosmic puzzle.

NASA, ESA, AND P. VAN DOKKUM (YALE UNIVERSITY)
If you keep up with the latest science news, you're probably familiar with a large number of controversies concerning the nature of the Universe itself. Dark matter, thought to outweigh normal atomic matter by a 5-to-1 ratio, could be unnecessary, and replaced by a modification to our law of gravity. Dark energy, making up two-thirds of the Universe, is responsible for the accelerated expansion of space, but the expansion rate itself isn't even agreed upon. And cosmic inflation has recently been derided by some as unscientific, as some of its detractors claim it can predict anything, and therefore predicts nothing.

If you add them all together, as philosopher Bjørn Ekeberg did in his recent piece for Scientific American, you might think cosmology was in crisis. But if you're a scrupulous scientist, exactly the opposite is true. Here's why.


https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F10%2F1-HyVX_xQ3P8ffEyZQE5wA-g.jpg

If you look farther and farther away, you also look farther and farther into the past. The earlier you go, the hotter and denser, as well as less-evolved, the Universe turns out to be. The earliest signals can even, potentially, tell us about what happened prior to the moments of the hot Big Bang.

Science is more than just a collection of facts, although it certainly relies on the full suite of data and information we've collected about the natural world. Science is also a process, where the prevailing theories and frameworks are confronted with as many novel tests as possible, seeking to either validate or refute the consequential predictions of our most successful ideas.

This is where the frontiers of science lie: at the edges of the validity of our leading theories. We make predictions, we go out and test them experimentally and observationally, and then we constrain, revise, or extend our ideas to accommodate whatever new information we obtained. The ultimate dream of many is to revolutionize the way we conceive of our world, and to replace our current theories with something even more successful and profound.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
The earliest signals can even, potentially, tell us about what happened prior to the moments of the hot Big Bang.

That seems to make deceptively good sense, whether it's by direct observation or mathematics. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, and certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I wonder if it's something so profound and earth-shaking scientists don't want us to know. :shrug:
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That seems to make deceptively good sense, whether it's by direct observation or mathematics. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, and certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I wonder if it's something so profound and earth-shaking scientists don't want us to know. :shrug:


Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I do not believe the reference does anything more than just science.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I do not believe the reference does anything more than just science.

I'm not referring to the article itself, or how it presents the information. Just wondering how true it is that we can't see beyond the Big Bang.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm not referring to the article itself, or how it presents the information. Just wondering how true it is that we can't see beyond the Big Bang.

It depends on what you call 'see.' The research in the science of Quantum Mechanics is the closest we can get to formation of the initial beginning and beyond. The hypothesis for the beginning or beginnings involve the more likely a singularity, or possibly a cyclic rebirth from the Quantum World beyond our universe in a multiverse. It is all a work in progress concerning the science of Quantum Mechanics.

The article provides an interesting insight into the ability of science to look back into the distant times and close to the beginnings of the universe looking at more and more distant galaxies.
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
I'm not referring to the article itself, or how it presents the information. Just wondering how true it is that we can't see beyond the Big Bang.
That's a question I have been asking for years - I wonder if the evidence of what was 'before' the 'beginning' is somehow 'encoded' in the earliest things we can 'see' - like the CMBR for example - and we just haven't figured out how to deconvolute the data yet. But I don't think for a minute that scientists are trying to hide anything - the biggest problem at present, I suspect, is more to do with the fuzziness and graininess of the 'picture' we currently have - especially of the early universe. Like the article says, "the frontiers of science" lie "at the edges of the validity of our leading theories" - and the edges of our scientifically enhanced powers of perception - we see the reality of that time (as we do our own time for that matter), as it were, "through a glass, darkly" not "face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12) - so for the time being, we laymen can and do fill in the blanks with all kinds of imaginings - some will ultimately turn out to be more valid than others as science gradually casts more light on - or rather gathers more light from - the earliest epochs of our current shared reality.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
But I don't think for a minute that scientists are trying to hide anything

I really don't either, my comment was largely tongue-in-cheek. It's just fun to think about. I hope that if they ever do learn what happened before, it's that another universe let one rip to become our universe, going on like this with an infinite number of universes for infinity. Maybe black holes are the Mother of All Farts, with each fart being a new universe. :D
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I really don't either, my comment was largely tongue-in-cheek. It's just fun to think about. I hope that if they ever do learn what happened before, it's that another universe let one rip to become our universe, going on like this with an infinite number of universes for infinity. Maybe black holes are the Mother of All Farts, with each fart being a new universe.
You know, I think that's about the most likely explanation for the reality we are passing through...if you see what I mean.
 
Top