Top 10 Space Mysteries for 2003

Space.com ^ | dec 26, 2002 | Robert Roy Britt

[R. Scott]

I love it – the more we learn the more we realize our ignorance.
I hope the day never arrives when we know everything about the Universe. It’s a mystery of the highest order, right up there with God.

[rovenstinez]

This is GOOD Stuff to wake up to, get a nice cup of coffee, and like the other thread says...the more we understand about our Universe, the more ignorance we see all around us, and YEP, someday we'll all wake up to see that there was Design, and Authorship written into the smallest code. I love it. There's a Plan Man, for 2003!

[scottinoc]

Most mainstream scientists, however, figure there’s a good chance that life on Earth was cooked up in a soup of pre-biotic chemicals right here on the planet.

Which begs the question, who was the cook? The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

[Paradox]

Ah, mysteries, mysteries, I love mysteries.

I suppose some day, this may all be figured out. If anyone is interested in some mindblowing extremely speculative fiction about what happens when we actually DO find out how everything works, I would suggest the book Distress, by Greg Egan.

[Gary Boldwater]

How is the expansion of the universe measured? Not by measuring distance. It's measured by the spectral shifts of known emitters of light. One cause of the shift could be the relative velocity of the source to the observer. This would explain the expansion. However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same. Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down.
It's too bad most scientists run with the herd. We need a few strays who think for themselves to advance knowledge.

[aruanan]

Here are a few more:

11. If the redshift of quasars is due entirely to recessional velocity, how to explain the quantization of redshift observed in quasars?

12. If quasars are supposed to be unbelievably bright objects out on the edge of the universe, how to explain their unmistakable association with relatively close, low redshift galaxies?

13. Given 11 and 12, how to explain their distribution by quantization values and non-random alignment across these galaxies?

14. Based on 11-13, how to explain the entrained material and isophote continuity between some low redshift galaxies and their higher redshift companion quasars?

15. Based on 11-14, why are such findings regularly suppressed by reviewers for major astronomy journals and by their editors?

16. Why are such publically-funded astronomical instruments as the Hubble and other scopes around the world allowed to be sequestered for use only by those who deny the decades-known data cited in 11-14 who often happen to be the people mentioned in 15?

17. What would become of current ideas of the formation and function of the universe--and the professional positions of those promoting them--if the single leg upon which they rest, the Big Bang (itself dependent on redshift as indicative of recessional velocity), no longer supports them?

[org.whodat]

What planet are you from ? LOL

[FreeReign]

Which begs the question, who was the cook? The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

The space bugs theory simply defers the questions -- who is the cook and did life come from primordial soup?

BTW, I don't see any evidence that would point to how life could survive a fall to earth.

[FreeReign]

How is the expansion of the universe measured? Not by measuring distance. It's measured by the spectral shifts of known emitters of light. One cause of the shift could be the relative velocity of the source to the observer. This would explain the expansion. However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same. Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down. It's too bad most scientists run with the herd. We need a few strays who think for themselves to advance knowledge.

Well said!

[aruanan]

What planet are you from* ? LOL

See what I mean? You'd be better served by informing your incredulity. Of course, the world will continue spinning its way through space regardless of the degree to which cosmological ideas deviate from what's actually out there.

*Planet: the world of academic science. Position: Ph.D..

[mrsmith]

" Scientists now generally agree that life could survive a trip to Earth from Mars"
...and from Earth to Mars.

So, if life were found on Mars, it very well could have just come from Earth.

Former Space Mystery #11: 'What does the turtle stand on?"
Ans. "It's turtles all the way down!"

[PoorMuttly]

1) "Nobody knows what the heck it is." It's Fred. Oh...WHAT it is ! Mostly Ovaltine, but a kind nobody wants.

2) I explained this one in an earlier thread. I said I'm sorry, and I'll be more careful in the future...but when a puppy needs to go...he needs to GO !

3) I didn't know you guys were so nosey...or I wouldn't have parked my SUV where it blocked your view. Sorry.

4) a: I LIVE one of those dreams. b: See reply #2: When a puppy needs to go...he REALLY needs to go !

[zeugma]

I'd like to see a more fleshed out version of your points. I'm quite sure one-liners don't quite do them justice.

I'm firmly convinced that there is something fundamentally wrong with our current view of the mechanics of the universe. I'm not sure exactly what it is though. It is more of a feeling sprung from casual study over the years.

I don't believe that modern physicists are completely off base. It is more like they seem to be missing some small set of fundamental facts, or maybe have made some assumptions that seem to fit observational data, but is nonetheless wrong. The best analogy would be that Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry seemed to explain the workings of the universe really well for quite a while. Both have been shown to have fundamental flaws that cause them to fail in both the macro and microsopic scales.

Once we are able to more fully quantify and understand conciousness we may have more of a clue. I don't really know, but enjoy the quest.

[Darksheare]

I'm still waiting for them to find a brown dwarf fairly close aboard our solar system.
That'll freak some lad coated types out. Then they'll all ask, "Why didn't we find this before?"

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good stuff!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[William Tell]

Gary Boldwater said: "Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down. "

I've read that red-shift might be explainable by a reduction in the speed of light over the life of the universe. I have not read that earth-based measurements support this possibility.

Can you recommend a summary of this evidence? Thanks.

[PatrickHenry]

Ping!

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]

[blastdad51]

This all to deep for me. I'm going back to my stack of Louis Lamour novels

[PatrickHenry]

However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same.

The redshift is not a feature of the speed of light, but of the recession of the source of the light. So yes, you're correct up to this point.

Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down.

Do you have a reliable source for this?