TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- New evidence found that may show previous universes
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Meat187 is actually Eminem. Can't believe you guys didn't pick up on the writing style. So obvious.

i thought get nyce was eminem. now i are confuse

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Rubbish, you're just lazy

Haha, well done!

I never learned how to do animated ones.

Assuming you're running PS CS5 (although I'm fairly sure it works in earlier editions), just open up Window -> Animation to set up your frames, adding and setting the time intervals between shots.

Then when you are all finished, you play the pro and wipe off on the hardened rag she hands you instead of flipping your shit about her not doing her bathroom run like the others by finding the 'softest' part as to not expose your then-really-sensitive willy to hard surfaces, then you watch as she herself uses the rag and then save under File -> Save for Web & Devices, going through the motions of sensual hygiene and setting up your .gif.

Eh, Penrose is prone to some pretty outlandish thinking sometimes so I wouldn't take this too seriously until his results are independently verified. It's telling that he released the results over the internet and not through a peer-reviewed publication.

Also, the early reactions aren't too flattering:

quote:

The contrast looks superficially impressive, but there�s much less to it than meets the eye. [...] The comparison of WMAP single-channel data with simple Gaussian simulations is... deeply flawed and the significance level quoted for the result is certainly meaningless. [...] Having not looked looked at this in detail myself I�m not going to say that the authors� conclusions are necessarily false, but I would be very surprised if an effect this large was real given the strenuous efforts so many people have made to probe the detailed statistics of the WMAP data; see, e.g., various items in my blog category on cosmic anomalies. Cosmologists have been wrong before, of course, but then so have even eminent physicists like Roger Penrose� Another point that I�m not sure about at all is even if the rings of low variance are real � which I doubt � do they really provide evidence of a cyclic universe? It doesn�t seem obvious to me that the model Penrose advocates would actually produce a CMB sky that had such properties anyway. Above all, I stress that this paper has not been subjected to proper peer review. If I were the referee I�d demand a much higher level of rigour in the analysis before I would allow it to be published in a scientific journal. Until the analysis is done satisfactorily, I suggest that serious students of cosmology shouldn�t get too excited by this result.

http://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...yclic-universe/

And a more technical article:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/w...adyan-have.html

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Also, the early reactions aren't too flattering:

There are multiple pre Big Bang theories, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is merely one of them, so you're inevitably going to get many Physicists arguing against it.

Same with most theories, really.

always good to have you aboard renegade!

i was gonna ask (with my numpty cosmology hat on) how there would be tell-tale signs of a previous universe's existence, given that everything in it was sucked back into something akin to a big crunch? wouldn't radiation be subject to the same gravitational pull that has contracted the entire universe to a single point of infinite density, therefore leaving no such evidence behind?

of course i haven't done science since 1994

quote:

They say that this means that this means that the universe cycles through aeons dominated by big bangs and supermassive black hole collisions.

How can black holes collide if the space inbetween them is expanding faster than light?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wouldn't radiation be subject to the same gravitational pull that has contracted the entire universe to a single point of infinite density, therefore leaving no such evidence behind?

The theory is, that it's that gravitational effect that leaves the 'mark' on the radiation.

.....at least that's what I understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk I can't do animated gifs, sorry

http://www.wikihow.com/Create-Anima...g-Photoshop-CS3

edit: opening them is also new:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375839

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course i haven't done science since 1994

And you haven't done any thinking since you were born

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo How can black holes collide if the space inbetween them is expanding faster than light ?

Think about that again

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Think about that again

quote:

time itself may not have existed yet.

So time didn't exist at that time? Great explanation, dipshit.

so wait......the universe has TWO cock rings?????

I've actually already heard of this theory I mean, doesn't Hawkings refer to the collapse of the universe as 'the big crunch' or something like that? So, I heard somehting about the universe being like a heart-beat, starting (big bang) growing & then collapsing (the big crunch) all over again...

Now, that doesn't really count as "evidence" just yet, does it?

Still, I swear I heard some Hindus cheering on my way here... someone please remind them that it doesn't mean there's an elephant on top of a tortoise holding the world.

Is this thread about Star Trek? This sounds like Star Trek.

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael Is this thread about Star Trek? This sounds like Star Trek.

Nope, it's about interstellar onion rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Hope, it's about interstellar onion rings.

I'd rather compare it to stretch marks of a pregnant woman.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 I'd rather compare it to stretch marks of a pregnant woman.

I just got a boner.

quote:

Originally posted by yukii I've actually already heard of this theory I mean, doesn't Hawkings refer to the collapse of the universe as 'the big crunch' or something like that? So, I heard somehting about the universe being like a heart-beat, starting (big bang) growing & then collapsing (the big crunch) all over again...

Yeah, that's what it's commonly known as and one possible outcome of the universe, the others being the 'Big Freeze' and the 'Big Rip'.

I can't remember what the current measurements are, but I'm sure we're currently floating around the critical density (which I find fascinating in itself), but we'll never really know what's going to happen until we learn more about Dark Energy and what the hell it's going to do in the future. But I personally believe in cyclicality.

quote:

Originally posted by Kenny Rogers can someone sum up all that text? is the universe beating like a heart is that what its about? that image reminded me more of some Buddhist artwork.

c0r version: The universe is continually created and destroyed by the Borg using a dilithium crystal chamber.

quote:

Originally posted by Acton There are multiple pre Big Bang theories, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is merely one of them, so you're inevitably going to get many Physicists arguing against it. Same with most theories, really.

Yeah but the trouble is that the current model explains the data so well that a competing theory (especially one like this that would turn our understanding of cosmology on its head) is going to have to have a lot of strong evidence in its favour to be taken seriously. From the second article I posted it seems like Penrose is basing his conclusions on a single set of anomolous data from the CMBR (that cosmologists were already familiar with) and some pretty creative inferences. Physicists aren't just arguing against it because they want to protect their own idiosyncratic cosmological theories, they're arguing against it because it represents a serious departure from an established model that has a staggering weight of evidence in its favour and which would require a much stronger case than the one Penrose is presenting to see it overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN always good to have you aboard renegade! i was gonna ask (with my numpty cosmology hat on) how there would be tell-tale signs of a previous universe's existence, given that everything in it was sucked back into something akin to a big crunch? wouldn't radiation be subject to the same gravitational pull that has contracted the entire universe to a single point of infinite density, therefore leaving no such evidence behind? of course i haven't done science since 1994

Well I don't claim to understand it either, but I think he's trying to say that the geometry of the CMBR is more consistent with the idea that our universe was caused by a series of massive events in some previous universe (namely the collision of supermassive black-holes) than the idea that our universe emerged from one, single event that perhaps had no precursor. Obviously I'm not even remotely qualified to enter into this debate, but Penrose's quirkiness and the fact that this paper was submitted without peer-review leads me to be quietly skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yeah but the trouble is that the current model explains the data so well that a competing theory (especially one like this that would turn our understanding of cosmology on its head) is going to have to have a lot of strong evidence in its favour to be taken seriously. From the second article I posted it seems like Penrose is basing his conclusions on a single set of anomolous data from the CMBR (that cosmologists were already familiar with) and some pretty creative inferences. Physicists aren't just arguing against it because they want to protect their own idiosyncratic cosmological theories, they're arguing against it because it represents a serious departure from an established model that has a staggering weight of evidence in its favour and which would require a much stronger case than the one Penrose is presenting to see it overturned.

Absolutely, it's understandable why Physicists would argue this model over current, more 'provable' models (even though it totally goes against the Inflation Model, but that's a different topic).

But I feel it's worth mentioning the following.....

1) Physicists were content with Newtons laws of motion, but then Einstein came along and advanced on the idea and included relativistic effects.

2) Physicists in the early 1900's were content in their knowledge on the structure of the Atom, until Rutherford produced the 'Rutherford Model' and it was blown out of the window.

3)....the list goes one.


I'm not saying Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is what's happening, but occasionally, rouge ideas produced by silent geniuses have drastically altered our perception of Physics.........just maybe, maybe Sir Roger Penrose is one of them

Oh looks, it's the standard argument everyone uses when they want to contradict accepted scientific knowledge.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.