The Code wrote:Quote : Studies have shown that clusters of galaxies gathering together in an explicable way. These clusters are conglomerations of about a thousand galaxies and they all follow a mysterious galactic movement. A totally unseen force discovered in 2008 . NASA has checked a catalog of different galaxy clusters and they found that all these clusters, regardless where they were in the sky, are all converging to one side of the universe. The force that is pulling these galaxies must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude.
Yes, that's what I said.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the concept of a Multiverse.
That conclusion does not follow from the observation. You do understand that the fact that the Universe as a whole is larger than the observable Universe is unrelated to the concept of multiple universes?
There has been a struggle to explain the unexplainable.
This is the kind of crappy writing we see too often in attempts to explain new science. The observation is most certainly not unexplainable. A number of excellent and plausible explanations have been proposed- all of which are subject to further testing, and a number of which are presently being tested. In fact, most of these explanations do not require any radical new cosmological ideas at all, and as a rule, the wise position is to assume that- most likely- no radical new theory will be required.
Quote : The theory might suggest that we are living in one of these universes. Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, said: “At this point we don’t have enough information to see what it is, or to constrain it. We can only say with certainty that somewhere very far away the world ? is very different than what we see locally. Whether it’s ‘another universe’ or a different fabric of space-time we don’t know.“
Exactly. We don't know. But we do know that we don't require "another universe" to explain the observation, and it is intellectually unsound to assume that the
possibility of such a thing means that it is
probable. Not knowing something is not the same as saying that all possibilities have equal merit, or equal likelihood of being true. I think you'll find very few cosmologists who believe that observed patterns of movement in the Universe are being caused by something outside the Universe. Possible, yes; probable, no.
Oh I understand Chris, I understand they had a little problem with How galaxies spin, Inside and out side spinning at the same rate, So they dropped a huge amount of Dark Matter in the equation and now its ok.
No, you don't seem to understand at all. Dark matter is a physical observation, not something dropped into any equations.
I also understand, while using the Standard Model, I cant explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerated rate. So again, A little Dark Energy worked wonders.
Actually, the standard model does explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe- if you assume a mechanism like dark energy. That's how science works: we have an observation that appears reliable (the expansion rate of the Universe has been increasing in the last few billion years), so somebody proposes a theory to explain it, and that theory undergoes testing. That is where we are right now with dark energy- people are devising tests to this theory (which so far have added support, and failed to disprove its existence), and are devising other theory to better explain it. It remains a work in progress. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this approach? It has certainly served us well in the last few hundred years, as a method for understanding nature.
Our Cluster of galaxies is included in this equation. Is there a little paradox in all this ? If we cant see what ever is the cause for this, because light has not had time to reach us, then how do we account for the 2 million MPH speed, thousands of clusters, over a distance of 2.5 billion light years are traveling towards it ?
There is no paradox. There is nothing in current theory that says we can't see something moving
now in response to something which is no longer part of the observable universe.
[quote="The Code"]Quote : Studies have shown that clusters of galaxies gathering together in an explicable way. These clusters are conglomerations of about a thousand galaxies and they all follow a mysterious galactic movement. A totally unseen force discovered in 2008 . NASA has checked a catalog of different galaxy clusters and they found that all these clusters, regardless where they were in the sky, are all converging to one side of the universe. The force that is pulling these galaxies must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude.[/quote]
Yes, that's what I said.
[quote]Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the concept of a Multiverse.[/quote]
That conclusion does not follow from the observation. You do understand that the fact that the Universe as a whole is larger than the observable Universe is unrelated to the concept of multiple universes?
[quote]There has been a struggle to explain the unexplainable.[/quote]
This is the kind of crappy writing we see too often in attempts to explain new science. The observation is most certainly not unexplainable. A number of excellent and plausible explanations have been proposed- all of which are subject to further testing, and a number of which are presently being tested. In fact, most of these explanations do not require any radical new cosmological ideas at all, and as a rule, the wise position is to assume that- most likely- no radical new theory will be required.
[quote]Quote : The theory might suggest that we are living in one of these universes. Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, said: “At this point we don’t have enough information to see what it is, or to constrain it. We can only say with certainty that somewhere very far away the [u]world ?[/u] is very different than what we see locally. Whether it’s ‘another universe’ or a different fabric of space-time we don’t know.“[/quote]
Exactly. We don't know. But we do know that we don't require "another universe" to explain the observation, and it is intellectually unsound to assume that the [i]possibility[/i] of such a thing means that it is [i]probable[/i]. Not knowing something is not the same as saying that all possibilities have equal merit, or equal likelihood of being true. I think you'll find very few cosmologists who believe that observed patterns of movement in the Universe are being caused by something outside the Universe. Possible, yes; probable, no.
[quote]Oh I understand Chris, I understand they had a little problem with How galaxies spin, Inside and out side spinning at the same rate, So they dropped a huge amount of Dark Matter in the equation and now its ok.[/quote]
No, you don't seem to understand at all. Dark matter is a physical observation, not something dropped into any equations.
[quote]I also understand, while using the Standard Model, I cant explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerated rate. So again, A little Dark Energy worked wonders.[/quote]
Actually, the standard model does explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe- if you assume a mechanism like dark energy. That's how science works: we have an observation that appears reliable (the expansion rate of the Universe has been increasing in the last few billion years), so somebody proposes a theory to explain it, and that theory undergoes testing. That is where we are right now with dark energy- people are devising tests to this theory (which so far have added support, and failed to disprove its existence), and are devising other theory to better explain it. It remains a work in progress. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this approach? It has certainly served us well in the last few hundred years, as a method for understanding nature.
[quote]Our Cluster of galaxies is included in this equation. Is there a little paradox in all this ? If we cant see what ever is the cause for this, because light has not had time to reach us, then how do we account for the 2 million MPH speed, thousands of clusters, over a distance of 2.5 billion light years are traveling towards it ?[/quote]
There is no paradox. There is nothing in current theory that says we can't see something moving [i]now[/i] in response to something which is no longer part of the observable universe.