|
New evidence found that may show previous universes (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Darkarbiter |
I remember this theory from cosmos, you can probably even find the section of the episode that mentions it online.
Or I could upload it to youtube. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| 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 |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Rubbish, you're just lazy
 |
Haha, well done! :)
I never learned how to do animated ones. |
|
|
| couch-potato |
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 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. |
|
|
| Renegade |
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 |
|
|
| Acton |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 :tongue2 |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| 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? |
|
|
| Acton |
| 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. |
|
|
| zGoogleman |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course i haven't done science since 1994 :tongue2 |
And you haven't done any thinking since you were born:tongue2 |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by saluyamo
How can black holes collide if the space inbetween them is expanding faster than light ? |
Think about that again |
|
|
|
|
