This thread is all about cosmology. Cosmology, the whole of cosmology and nothing but cosmology!
Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science (SCIENCE) of everything.
Please keep on topic or the moderators can feel free to close it if it strays or gets out of hand!
This is a discussion of theories, evidence, experiments and observations. Anything relevant to objective and rational scientific endeavours.
If you have an argument, I suggest you backup it up with all you've got! (you might learn something ) (images, quotes, references, books, photos, graphs)
(If you begin discussing your personal beliefs, there had better be a cosmology theory to back them up) - and I don't mean something you made up in 5 minutes!

Let the fun begin!

This thread is still very much alive.
Feel free to reply.

No it ain't . It has been locked. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yer its been locked...so I guess this is the thread to discuss all things to do with Cosmology. Very interesting topic I might add, while I admit I dont know a great deal im pretty keen to find out more!

TS

Agreed. I still am unsure if that previous thread really needed to be locked but oh well. I guess it is up to the moderators if you agree with them or not. I am looking foward to see how this thread goes and read what people have to say about Cosmology.

:cheers:

I'll give you an idea of what we might discuss. Read The Electric Cosmos , first paragraph and Electric Plasma , first paragraph!

Having read those paragraphs, I'd argue not that 99% of the universe , but rather an unknown but substantial fraction of the matter comprising the universe, is in plasma state.

This would help explain why galaxies don't fly apart (due to the momentum they sustain). Read Missing "Dark" Matter!! to understand. (It may take a while to digest).

It should be pointed out that physical interactions are necessary for anything to occur in the universe at all. As an example of this not being understood, General Relativity claims that a physical action can result from a "subject" (i.e. space-time) which has no physical reality but exists only as an idealised, mathematical concept. Whatever is in space that we can't see (electromagnetic fields, molecules, ions, etc, it's likely to be full of this stuff, and not just there because. Replace the idea of space with what we can't see, measure (yet); and all the energy and matter that we don't realise is there, and you may understand why I say space doesn't exist.

No wonder they're having trouble explaining Graviational Lensing, which assumes that the curvature of space can change the path of light when travelling around a massive object, say, a star. Properties can't be applied to space or time; they must be restricted to objects existing within space and time. The concept of space is more the result of an "obvious" presumption than of a realistic anaylsis. It may seem necessary for experiments, but it's not a prerequisite for understanding the universe.
:nerd:
Any qualms with that? or ?

If you want to read through that website further, be my guest! You might pick up on something I've missed or will miss later on.

Maybe we ought to have a definition of what Cosmology is, in order to better understand the topic.

There! I hope that is to everyone's satisfaction so there can be no complaints.

I just though I would post this image again since the other thread was locked. I did modify it slightly and made it slightly simpler.
This is my favorite cosmological theory. The inflationary cosmos. IMO this really sheds light on why we are here in spite of the exponential odds. It has a lot to do with the universe being exponentially huge.
:cheers:

I donnot have a head for Science of any kind. Just can't comprehend it. None of the theories make alot of sense to me. I have trouble coming to terms with how we, the physical human beings, as we are now, came to be here. No theory or belief answers this question. They all require a certain amount of supposition on my part. Has anyone come up with a definate answer or are they all still hypothesising (s/p)? Darwin's theory of evolution sounds quite plausible to me, but take it right back to the very beginning and I'm lost. It seems to me that the basic idea is that we originated from what is virtually nothing. It's mindboggling to me, a normal individual with little scientific knowledge. So I will be reading the posts in this thread with interest-the one's I can understand- to see if anyone has come up with the answers.
Gabby

This book might help, also this one.

:cheers:

Thanks Paul2003! Was rather hoping that you guys would give some answers as this thread progresses. But if not those books you recommended will be of help to me.
Thanks again gabby

The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It's obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of some cosmologists that time and space only came into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself). And please remember that when I say infinite space and time, I don't mean they actually exist.

Unfortunately, we're not taught critical reasoning in high school.

Though I probably can't properly explain how humans beings came to be here in the first place, I can say that that we have reached this point in our evolutionary development (when we can wonder about the hows and whys) seems to have significance in itself. If we could figure out why we as 'why' in the first place, the answer may become self-evident.

Hi paul2003,

I went to that Inflationary Theory website you mentioned and looked at the questions under the heading Limitations of the Big Bang Theory. I can comment on a couple of them for you:

-Why is the universe so uniform on the largest length scales?

This question is taking certain ideas out of proportion. It refers to the universe when it should be referring to the known universe. We don't know that the universe is so uniform on the largest length scales. On the other hand, the known universe may be uniform because of certain forces acting at that scale that we're not aware of.

-Why are there so many photons in the universe?

A 'photon' is a 'particle' representation of the concept of electromagnetic radiation. However, the electromagnetic field is a continuum of energy and has no discrete structure; it's immaterial. One should, if possible, avoid the notion of a 'photon' as it's usually wrongly associated with particle-like objects. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't have 'mass' or 'momentum'. A photon is assumed to have these properties. The picture of a photon as a 'particle' of light is invalid. Light can't take the form of a particle. Only material objects can have momentum, given, in general, by the equation momentum = mass*velocity. There are no numbers of 'photons' in the universe.

I hope that helps.

I can, if you want, go into abstract detail about why things are the way they are.

Maybe be acceptable to who? You? Unfortunately, there are billions that may disgaree with you say that the search for how life began is definately a scientific and spiritual quest. Let's leave religion out of this because it does not define the quest but rather the 'effort' put into the quest. E.g. you are very religious about your views on cosmology .

Objective and scientific? How could it not be? To understand how life began is the object of science, is it not? The same for spirituality.

How is the assumption of creation logically inconsistent? Nice to make wide-sweeping generalisations but where's the proof? It is, imo, entirely consistent with the 'cause and effect' principle, in that it clearly gives the cause and the resultant effect. Clearly. In fact it is the ONLY principle, imo, that does so authoritively. Big Bang does no t- it relies upon vague assumptions. Evolution does not - it relies upon generalities and vague assumptions derived from disputed carbon dating and fossil records.

Time itself is 'linnear' in that it commences at a point - by pure definition - and moves towards a point.

Therefore the Earth and life began at a point in time. How? Only ONE "theory" can answer that question in full entirity.

I'm anything but religious about my view on cosmology. I meant that first paragraph in the context of what we can do here and now on Earth, at the present. Since we can't fly around the entire universe (with our present technological capability) and find all the answers, it would seem more reasonable to hypothesise within our limitations. Hypothesising beyond our capabilities is mere speculation. If hypothesising beyond our capabilities is to become more than mere speculation, it must be abstract hypothesising.

The cause/effect principle may be a principle, but it's self-evident. You commented, I replied! If you wanted to restrict the principle of cause and effect (which implicates an infinite recursive chain) to a finite lifetime of the universe, you would have to use a non-uniform time scale. This is a procedure that has already led antique philosophers to logically absurd claims regarding the possibility of motion (e.g. Zeno’s paradoxes).

The past, present and future are three separate concepts. You must think in terms of the here and now to understand why the past never happened and why the future never eventuates; like the yesterday/tomorrow scenario.

What exists is the present. There's no point at which the past becomes the present or the present becomes the future. Only the present exists. If you think of yourself as moving along the timeline (to use an analogy), you are moving at a point/instant in time. And since an instant in time is no time all, because no time can pass through an instant, because time is a non-spatial continuum, it doesn't exist at/in the present instant.

It's self-reference to state that 'time' came into existence at a certain 'time', just as it is to state that 'space' came into existence at a certain 'point', because that 'point' would also have to come into existence at a 'point', and so on.

The illusion of time is actually what our brains interpret as events eventuating. To exist is to eventuate. And since events can't occur unless there's a physical interaction, energy/matter interacting should be all that this necessary for events to occur.

I re-emphasise that no theory can ever given an explanation from anything to perfect accuracy in its entirety. It's naive to think otherwise. Look up the definition of the word theory. Unless you are going to use abstract reasoning, I suggest you don't use the word entirety.

There’s always going to be an answer to a question, it’s just a matter of whether we discover it or not, or bother making any effort to. (Figuring out what to search for and how to find it is the starting point). To blindly charge head will hinder more than help. I don’t actually know what the statement “we exist” means! All I really know for certain is that something, whatever it is, exists or has being! In fact, I know this beyond all doubt! (read my last reply in the thread "Theories of the Universe"). The rest I don’t know, and as I don’t know it, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say what part of it I want to know. To want to discover the unknown and to want to know how the universe works is enough. That is the objective of science as a whole! I wanna know it aaalll!

From this webpage is a desription of Thomas Young's famous two split experiment covers that subject fairly well:

In spite of the fact there is still a lot of unanswered questions with cosmology, we have come a long way since the ancient Greeks. In early Grecian times they have no means of knowing or testing experimentally whether the universe was just a few thousand years old or billions or of infinite age and size.

Compared to the Greeks we are in a golden age for cosmology. Even distant galaxies could not even been seen let alone have the technical means at their disposal to measure the red shift.

The 19th century Thomas Young and his two slit experiment would still be all far beyond them as it was assumed that light travelled at infinite velocity so if there was some event like a supernova in the sky it was assumed we observed it exactly the instance it happened and it would never occur to them that there may be 6 thousand of years of delay if that event was 6 thousand lightyears away.

So, yes science has come a long way since then, but we should not abandon it if there are some things about our universe that we will never know. Like whether there is life in other galaxies and the existence of parallel universes. IMO if science cannot discover it or reveal it in any other way then nothing else will.

:cheers:

Gotta admit...I've been trying to figure out the "meaning of life" for years. Could use all the help you people can give me ! Even I'm stumped on this one :rolleyes: ! Have you best shot !

Here is the meaning of life that's an easy question. Just how we are we supposed to live our lives? Now that's a much harder question.
IMHO Life is an emergent property in the universe's development that spontaneously emerges into existence when a critical level of complexity was achieved.
:cheers:

Hmm..yeah.. :cheers: ..that sounds alright..but I was thinking more along the lines of the following questions:

-Why do we ask why?
-Why does something that has the need to survive exist?
-What is it about the property of consciousness that makes it unique?
-What is consciousness?
-Why do we want to understand how the universe works, beyond any desire to improve our chances of survival?

I don't think that we can define a distinct point at which life came into existence. It seems more reasonable for physical interactions to change and evolve the structure of a developing proto-living organism in a certain way. For the transition from the living to the non-living to be a gradual process of an accumulation of independently functioning properties..if that makes sense.
( ?)

Maybe I should use an analogy again to make it clear.

It seems like the transition from the non-living to the living should be more like the transition from red to orange on the electromagnetic spectrum.

The other questions I've raised seem to be open to discussion at this point. Anyone who has any ideas..that'd be great !

Does that make any sense?

Maybe it's not that hard:...

A greater concern than religion is the belief in meaninglessness. The difficulty of avoiding this one lies in the fact that it's hidden and often difficult to recognise. One popular idea is that there're questions in the world for which there is no answer, and the meaning of life is one of them. The statement is obviously false, since the basic principle of life (at the moment) is that everything is uncertain. So therefore, we don't know whether or not there is an answer. However, based on what I think "the meaning of life" refers to, I also agree that it doesn't seem like the fundamental question we should be concerned with (don't let this make you think it's not a fundamental question though). At the moment, to be unable to doubt, to be absolutely certain of why we exist, is not within my reach.

For me too, the aspect of philosophy I'm more interested in involves answering the question of what to do in my life.

Does it matter whether I do one thing or another?

What I mean is, is it ultimately of any significance what I do in my life? If the answer is no, then everything is meaningless. It simply doesn't matter what I do. Every action, thought and decision is equal to every other! There's no reason to have preference in or towards anything!

On the other hand, if the answer is yes, then I will focus my entire life towards those actions, thoughts and decisions that are best!

This is only meaningful if it's possible to use reason and my understanding of the world to identify which decisions are more likely to be better than others. This involves having a means and a goal to pursue. Now everything in life becomes serious, meaningful, purposeful and worhtwhile instead of meaningless.

Some people may conclude that everything is uncertain, which in turn can lead them to ask the question:

Doesn't this mean that both meaninglessness and seriousness in life are equally valid, since we can't prove either one correct or incorrect?

It's another common mistake people make. What is factually true or false is often irrelevant. Finding out what's true and false is the goal, it's not the means! The means is to use logic to make the best decision I can.

Logic tells me to be prepared for every possibility, the possibility that life is meaningless and that it's serious. If it's serious, and I assume it's meaningless, then I was wrong. If it's meaningless, and I assume it is serious, then I was right because you can't ever be wrong when everything is meaningless anyway.

That's why it's not logical to assume life is meaningless, and that's why it's logical to assume life is serious. If anybody says life is pointless and everybody can do whatever they want, it doesn't matter, they're wrong! I just proved it! Of course, knowing life is serious alone doesn't help if we can't figure out a goal and a means. Since a lot seems uncertain, we don't know what the goal should be. However, that statement itself suggests a goal. Since we don't know what the goal is, the goal is to find the goal, to discover the unknown!

Through this reasoning process alone, I gained comfort in the knowledge that I am indeed here for a reason. There's also a sense of spirituality in that, which begins my spiritual quest! Brilliant!!

This is still relevant to this tread, even if it's philosophical discussion.

What do you think of the questions I proposed above?

The most plausible theory and is the one I have been the most comfortable with for the past ten years is the "phase transition theory". Complex structures are more dominant the chaotic ones, and it a primordial organic chemical mix in a closed system like the surface of a planet that reached a critical level of molecular diversity and the whole system taken by lger super-complex molecules like polymers. Then enzymes, proteins and then life. Here is a sight that covers complexity theory fairly well. Although I must admit much of it is getting out of my depth.

Quote:

Maybe I should use an analogy again to make it clear.

It seems like the transition from the non-living to the living should be more like the transition from red to orange on the electromagnetic spectrum.

More like the transtion from water to ice explained Here

Quote:

Phase transitions in what are called equilibrium systems are both common and appear in undergraduate physics degrees. The most familiar examples are the phase transitions of water: the freezing of liquid water into ice and the boiling of liquid water into water vapour. Essentially, a phase transition is where a substance changes qualitatively, for example in freezing it goes from being a liquid, which flows, to being a crystal which is solid and doesn't flow. This PhD project would be to look at the dynamics of equilibrium phase transitions, i.e., how a phase transition such as the freezing of liquid water into ice occurs. A phase transition like freezing is started off by heterogeneous nucleation . What happens is that a tiny, only a few molecules across, crystal of ice forms at a surface in contact with the water. For example, if you are making ice cubes then the ice crystals will start to form either at the walls of the plastic ice-cube holder or on tiny dirt particles in the water (no water, certainly not tap water is completely free from dirt particles). Here is a schematic of a nucleus at a surface.
Heterogeneous nucleation is an activated process, for the nucleus of the ice crystal, or of any other phase, to form a barrier must be crossed and the rate at which crystals form depends exponentially on the height of the barrier. Indeed if the barrier is very high nucleation does not occur at all and the water won't freeze. The project will study heterogeneous nucleation in particular how high the barrier is, not in water but in simple toy models of proteins. The crystallisation of proteins is both an excellent playground for looking at the physics of crystallisation and a subject of great interest by molecular biologists. Typically crystallising a protein is both very important to determining its all-important structure, and very difficult.

:cheers: