Nope, zero mass. full stop. If it had any mass whatsoever, it couldn't travel at light speed due to relativistic effects. Nothing we know about photons suggests there is even a miniscule mass to the photon. The thing about EM radiation being composed of discrete particles, is that the photon doesn't degrade in any way. Either it is absorbed, or it continues unimpeded. There is no "partial" absorption. The big bang theory may seem insane, but I think it comes with the territory when you are trying to understand the origin of the universe. I don't think I could dream up a theory that wasn't any less insane.
I stray from the usual theories somewhat. As a child I was taught more about the gravitational effects than what it actually was, so as I grew older I formed the concept of it being "dark mass" rather than the "worm-hole" type theories I was taught. I now hear of more accurate theories regarding black holes that line-up pretty well with the concepts I had envisioned, though I still have an unclear vision of them. The thought of them being possible at the center of galaxies was one concept I had and I see it's become a popular one, though I may have differing thoughts on it. I haven't come to any conclusion yet on any of this as I'm still debating it all with myself! (laughs) I define black hole's shapes to be similar to gravitational fields, roughly like an apple: Core at center, poles have funnel shape. With the thought of black hole at the center of Galaxies, I had this addition concept: I'd also say there are possibly "collapsed", or "exhausted", former galaxies that some may believe to be considered black holes. In that concept, I was thinking about how a massive, ancient galaxy might have absorbed and exhausted all the mass within it's grasp and "burned" off all it could, then collapsed and is now "dark". I'm aware of the different types of stars, and the characteristics they have ...my concept (not ready to call it a theory) contemplates a collection of stars (such as at the center of galaxies), rather than a single star, and what could happen when THAT exhausts all it's "fuel". I'd think such an object would be visible, but possibly only if the poles of it were aligned with or near enough to us (I would imagine it would emit high energy particle from the poles), or something else within it's gravitational field is affected. But I am still contemplating what effects we might be able to observe about such a thing here on Earth. All that is purely conceptual or hypothetical and is based on my limited knowledge.
Yeah, I understand, but this is a theory about what we know and don't. I'm saying that from what we know it may be untrue, but we can't know for sure. The immense time and distance may have affected particles in ways we haven't been able to think of yet, and there's no way I can think of to use the scientific method on it, short of having an experiment on the same scales. I know, moot point. I just wanted to bounce my theory off you and see if it passed the sniff test lol FAILED (laughs)
Yeah pretty much, sorry. But the point is, there is no evidential reason to believe that photons do this, nor is there any mechanism theorized which would explain how a photon could decay in such a way. And the only reason you came up with your hypothesis is the gap between the oldest observable object and the measured age of the universe, and this is explained by what I described (the opacity of the young universe). It's an interesting idea, but it's also pure speculation and not worthy of real consideration until we find evidence to suggest such a hypothesis.
I have been served... (laughs) ...that's fine, It's what I expected to hear, but if any science buddies want to come here and diss me over it, they should know something first ...I cap mines for a reason... (laughs) ...just kidding! (waits for mod edit) laughs
Haha... yeah it's nothing personal, I just call 'em like I sees 'em. It's good to think outside the box, that's how discoveries are made!
angie? I found a link for a page that is relevant to your question. Excuse the pun, but don't put too much "faith" into it ...since it's only theory lol The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe I tried to sleep but my tooth was bugging me, and I still have some theories I'd like to ask boomer so I started searching lol Your question is somewhat answered in the 1st (point)
Sorry, I thought I was done. I tried to sleep, but started thinking about something, then my tooth decided I should get up anyway... so here I am! lol I found a link and have a couple of points I'd like to make. The Universe within 14 billion Light Years - The Visible Universe My first point is in the Additional Maps section, The Cosmic Microwave Background. My view is that this would be consistant with parts of my theory. My 2nd point is further down at the The Size of the Universe section (first paragraph). Ummm, I think it's wrong lol I think it's a weak attempt to support a weak theory. That's just my opinion and don't need a response. I just wanted you to see it. If you don't mind, could you take a look? Thanks. P.S. - I know I'm being a bit annoying, but I promise to stop ...eventually lol
To be honest, I find most of the site to be self-delusional. By that I mean it explains concepts in order to support unfounded theories (In this case, the nature of the universe, supporting the Big Bang theory) I understand how they formed the original theory, and how they went about finding evidence to support it, but to me it's an unrealistic theory to begin with. I believe the evidence used to prove the theory to be misinterpreted observations that haven't been properly evaluated, in order to support one theory only at the exclusion of any other that may be out there (I'm intending to research whether or not there are other theories so if you know of a site I can do that on let me know). I'll give an example: Not that long ago, learned people proved that wood had the Fire element by lighting it on fire, releasing the element. We now know different of course. Now, if you find this (my beliefs/theories) too annoying, I'll understand and leave it be. I know it could be lol ...I'm just asking you to take a reasonable look at my point of view, and let it digest a bit. Maybe, just maybe, fire (the Big Bang theory) isn't an element, but a decent explanation for it's time. To me, all theories should include more "We think this is why" and not just "This is why"... but I'm picky lol
I hope you're not offended if I don't pull any punches - I figure that's why you're here anyway, to get some honest feedback on your opinions. So here goes. I don't see it that way. When you look at more and more distant objects, you are essentially looking further and further back in time. But once you reach a certain distance, what you find is the cosmic microwave background, beyond which nothing else can be seen. What you are essentially seeing is the ancient universe at the point where it first became transparent. For the benefit of whoever else might be reading this, I will quote the section I think you are referring to: I wrote several responses to this but finally decided that trying to explain why the big bang theory is the leading accepted theory for the origin of the universe would be pointless. I'm sure you are familiar with the scientific method, so forgive me if this is superfluous but I feel there are a few things that I need to establish before I should continue. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory in common parlance. In everyday use, a theory means a hunch or a guess. A scientific theory, however, is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation of our observations. The development of a theory is a long, thorough process that starts when a hypothesis is proposed to explain an observed phenomenon. This hypothesis is then used to form a model of the phenomenon, from which predictions are made and experiments are designed to test the hypothesis. If the experiments fail to support the hypothesis, we start over. If the experiments support the hypothesis, then we gain confidence in the model, and if the hypothesis stands up to repeated experimentation, it becomes a theory. The reason I am explaining this is because I get the sense from your comments that you don't have an appreciation for the amount of evidence that has led to the development of the big bang theory, or the amount of experimentation that has been done that supports the theory. The webpage that you brought to my attention here, while it is an excellent summary of much of what we know about the big bang theory, is just that - a summary of the conclusions of the theory. The paragraph you say is a "weak attempt to support a weak theory" is nothing of the sort. What supports the theory is not the claim put forward in that paragraph - the support for the theory is the evidence that they didn't have room to fit on the page. There isn't really time to discuss every line of evidence in detail, but among the main lines of evidence are such things as: 1) The expansion of the universe as evidenced by the cosmological redshift and hubble's law; 2) The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation; 3) The abundance of elements in the universe, for which measurements match the amounts predicted by the models. These among many other lines of evidence, all come together to corroborate the same cohesive theory of the big bang. There is no other theory that explains the observations as well as the big bang theory. In summary, when you say that this is a weak attempt to support a weak theory, this suggests to me that you think theories are concocted out of a flight of fancy and then evidence is sought out to support it. The fact of the matter is that the theory follows the evidence - not the other way around. Observations are made; a hypothesis is formed in an attempt to explain the observations; predictions are made based on the hypothesis; experiments are designed to test the predictions; if the model is found to make accurate predictions, we gain confidence in the hypothesis and it becomes a theory. I don't fully understand what part of the theory you think is "wrong", but if you want to address any one piece of evidence that I've listed above (or another) then you can describe what contention you have for them one at a time. But unless you have a model that explains the evidence better than the big bang theory, I'll stick with what the cosmological experts have developed over decades of observations, theorizing, and experimentation.
I've already said too much, but I just thought I would point out that this is just what I was referring to in a previous comment - that science does NOT claim to have all the answers, it just puts forth the BEST answer we have based on the evidence. And science is always striving to test (prove or disprove) and possibly improve those answers by finding new data.
I understand... and not offended ...but I continue to disagree. Like you said "thinking outside the box" ...in the sense that I don't agree with the evidence and conclusions... the methods I can agree with though, I just believe something else. Thanks for listening though lol
But you understand that your "theory" is not a theory in the same sense that the big bang Theory is a theory, right? I remember you said earlier that it is "just a theory", which suggests to me you think it is just wild unfounded speculation.
I'll say my concept is speculation, not a theory. I used theory ...mainly for simplicity (to others) and not as an established theory.. I agree to disagree as to whether or not the methodology supports the Big Bang theory. I still believe it's a misinterpretation of evidence.
I think this example bears repeating though: "Not that long ago, learned people proved that wood had the Fire element by lighting it on fire, releasing the element. We now know different of course." Now, I want you to understand that yes, I am dissing the current theories (and their methodology) not from lack of comprehension (I have an extensive knowledge on theories and the scientific methods) but from the point of "What is more likely?" ...I find current theories to be ...less than what you could expect to see in a reality... and more from what you could expect to see in an unreality. But I think we've gone through all the points that we can. Should we call it? Agree to disagree? Later Note: I've been searching for more info and found the "Tired-Light" hypothesis, which in some ways reflects what I'm saying about the 14 by limit. It was 1st proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky. "Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law." I guess I'm older than I thought! (laughs) The name is very familiar, suggesting I may have read this long ago. Either way, moot point. I see it's been debated long enough lol And finally: "...alternative hypotheses such as tired light remain historically interesting and cannot be completely ruled out..." ...at least I'm thinking like a scientist and not a quack (though I see how I might be perceived that way)
On a somewhat related note, I found an interactive map of the Milky Way by Nick Risinger. In it, you can zoom in pretty well. He spent a year photographing these images! It's at: http://media.skysurvey.org/openzoom.html
Is the universe a living entity or is it a plane filled with living entities with the planet earth being one of them and we are just like cells that form the human body to give an example of comparison.
