Birth Of The Universe In 5 Seconds

[100%]

"Astronomers have recaptured the sounds of the early Universe
showing it was born not with a bang but a quiet whisper that became a dull roar."

Listen Here :
1.The first million years compressed to five seconds : http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000...acenoiseone.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000/rm/_40305671_spacenoiseone.ram)

2.The sound of the Universe when 400,000 years old : http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000...acenoisetwo.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000/rm/_40305679_spacenoisetwo.ram)

Read more here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm

"Listening to it I have to say that the Universe is a lousy musical instrument"
Professor Mark Whittle :blink:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40305000/jpg/_40305421_cmb_wmap_203body.jpg

[Donnie Darko]

Never trust the bbc.

[Voetsek]

with faith and string all things are possible still sounds like fun

[Donnie Darko]

Dont trust the string theory
http://superstringtheory.com/

[Voetsek]

why yes i take it you are aware of the whole string and wax thing

[Voetsek]

why thats a start

[sampson]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko@24 June 2004 - 04:56
Never trust the bbc.
:beerchug: :clap:

[Voetsek]

no no thats allways trust the bbc

[bujub22]

Originally posted by Voetsek@24 June 2004 - 07:12
no no thats allways trust the bbc
http://filesharingtalk.com/uploads/av-122603.jpg

this is gotta be the ugliest avatar ever! :(

[Gemby!]

do people really need to know what the 'big bang' sounded like ??

[benxuk]

I'm impressed it actually made a noise, and more so that its managed to echo
around in a realm of nothing? Strange... guess thats why there tho boffs and i'm not eh...

[J'Pol]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by J'Pol@24 June 2004 - 19:54
You can't have sound in a vacuum.
How come i keep hearing you then.....????? :blink:

[manker]

Originally posted by J'Pol@24 June 2004 - 17:54
You can't have sound in a vacuum.
that's a very common misconception.

it is true if the vacuum is perfect - i.e. if there are no molecules of air at all present in some enclosed space - but perfect vacuums are not common place.

now if, for example, you suck the tip of your finger to create a vacuum inside your mouth (so your cheeks are concave) then you haven't expelled all of the air so sound can still travel in that small space. sound just needs some air molecules to compress together in order to be able to travel.

yes. I'm bored, waiting for the football to start. :D

[Mr. Mulder]

http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~yukio-m/books/img/10/dyson.jpg

[J'Pol]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
that's a very common misconception.

it is true if the vacuum is perfect - i.e. if there are no molecules of air at all present in some enclosed space - but perfect vacuums are not common place.

now if, for example, you suck the tip of your finger to create a vacuum inside your mouth (so your cheeks are concave) then you haven't expelled all of the air so sound can still travel in that small space. sound just needs some air molecules to compress together in order to be able to travel.

yes. I'm bored, waiting for the football to start. :D ]
I said vacuum, not partial vacuum.

I did not qualify the word in any way, so what you posted was totally irrelevant.

You described my argument as a common misconception, then the next thing you said was that it was true. Whether a perfect vacuum is commonplace is neither here nor there.

You can't have sound in a vacuum.

[Yogi]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
that's a very common misconception.

it is true if the vacuum is perfect - i.e. if there are no molecules of air at all present in some enclosed space - but perfect vacuums are not common place.

now if, for example, you suck the tip of your finger to create a vacuum inside your mouth (so your cheeks are concave) then you haven't expelled all of the air so sound can still travel in that small space. sound just needs some air molecules to compress together in order to be able to travel.

yes. I'm bored, waiting for the football to start. :D
I said vacuum, not partial vacuum.

I did not qualify the word in any way, so what you posted was totally irrelevant.

You described my argument as a common misconception, then the next thing you said was that it was true. Whether a perfect vacuum is commonplace is neither here nor there.

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
see??

there's even echo in a vacuum.............. :lol:

[J'Pol]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
How come i keep hearing you then.....????? :blink:
If you keep hearing me I would suggest that you maybe want to lay off the funny fags for a wee while. :blink:

In more ways than one :rolleyes:

EDIT - What does foy mean :blink:

[Yogi]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
How come i keep hearing you then.....????? :blink:
If you keep hearing me I would suggest that you maybe want to lay off the funny fags for a wee while. :blink:

In more ways than one :rolleyes:

EDIT - What does foy mean :blink:

feckin' brilliant.................


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Monkster]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
How come i keep hearing you then.....????? :blink:
If you keep hearing me I would suggest that you maybe want to lay off the funny fags for a wee while. :blink:

In more ways than one :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[manker]

You can't have sound in a vacuum.
that's a very common misconception.

it is true if the vacuum is perfect - i.e. if there are no molecules of air at all present in some enclosed space - but perfect vacuums are not common place.

now if, for example, you suck the tip of your finger to create a vacuum inside your mouth (so your cheeks are concave) then you haven't expelled all of the air so sound can still travel in that small space. sound just needs some air molecules to compress together in order to be able to travel.

yes. I'm bored, waiting for the football to start. :D ]
I said vacuum, not partial vacuum.

I did not qualify the word in any way, so what you posted was totally irrelevant.

You described my argument as a common misconception, then the next thing you said was that it was true. Whether a perfect vacuum is commonplace is neither here nor there.

You can't have sound in a vacuum.


eh? you said "You can't have sound in a vacuum."

but

a vacuum is a given space filled with gas at pressures below atmospheric pressure. this is not limited to a given space with no gas present at all below atmospheric pressure but it does encompass it.

therefore for reasons I've given you can have sound in a vacuum

further:

the notion that there cannot be sound in a vacuum is a common misconception

as you have just ably demonstrated.

dress it up how you want. you're wrong.

[J'Pol]

A vacuum is a space empty of matter.

You may chose to use an (acceptable) alternative meaning. However the true scientific definition of a vacuum is a space devoid of matter.

You can't get sound in a vacuum.

[manker]

Originally posted by J'Pol@25 June 2004 - 09:16
A vacuum is a space empty of matter.

You may chose to use an (acceptable) alternative meaning. However the true scientific definition of a vacuum is a space devoid of matter.

You can't get sound in a vacuum.
Oh, I see. you're confused as to what a vacuum is. I'm afraid your definition is incomplete.

Those chaps at N.A.S.A. (http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/v.html) may blow a disproportionately large amount of public money on what many consider to be frivolities but when it comes to vacuum spec, they know their onions.

Note the different levels of stregnth. vacuums are measured in torrs, the lower the torr the less matter inside the vacuum in proportion to the volume of the enclosed space. thus vacuums are generally not deviod of matter and precisely because they are not deviod of matter sound will travel through them.

This isn't a fuzzy theological debate. it's science where you're either correct or incorrect. that is why I say you can dress it up how you want but clearly you are wrong. don't feel bad because as I said before it is a common misconception ;)

Sound can travel through a vacuum.

[J'Pol]

I don't feel bad at all, as I am right.

Merriam Webster gives us

1 : emptiness of space
2 a : a space absolutely devoid of matter b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump) c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure

Dictionary.com gives us

Absence of matter.
A space empty of matter.
A space relatively empty of matter.
A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure.
A state of emptiness; a void.

In each case look at the first meaning. Generally the first meaning is the commonly accepted one and those following are alternates.

Your argument is based on the contention that a vacuum can contain matter. When I studied physics that was known as a partial vacuum, only space totally devoid of matter was considered to be a vacuum.

The problem here is in our definitions. If we take a vacuum by my definition (and the first one in both dictionary's I have quoted) then you can't have sound in a vacuum.

If you use your definition, i.e. a space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure, then yes you can have sound.

We are both right / wrong depending on the definition used.

[manker]

:lol:

We can't both be right, sound can either travel in a vacuum or it cannot.

Merriam Webster says a vacuum can be partially deviod of matter as does dictionary dot com

Your reasoning is flawed as your 'definition' of a vacuum isn't a definition at all, it's an example.

my definition encompasses all instances of vacuums.

In the first message you stated that "sound cannot travel in a vacuum" that is clearly untrue because Merriam Webster, dictionary dot com and N.A.S.A have all catagorically stated that just because a vacuum has matter inside it does not preclude it from being a vacuum.

Therefore sound can travel in a vacuum.

edit: I'm off to Newquay for a stag weekend in 20 minutes. maybe we can pick this up on Monday or something because something tells me you wont just say "good point manker, I stand corrected" ;)

[J'Pol]

Unfortunately I won't be here for a week or so, as of tomorrow.

However good point manker, well presented, incorrect as it may be.

Enjoy your weekend btw. I hope you have a great time.

[manker]

your wit surpasses mine but your logic does not in this matter! but have a good week yourself, whatever you're getting up to.

btw I've just re-read my last post, as I hurried it rather, it seems that this is the killer point in my favour:


Your reasoning is flawed as your 'definition' of a vacuum isn't a definition at all, it's an example.

my definition encompasses all instances of vacuums.

ok I'm outta the door :P

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by manker@25 June 2004 - 14:01
your wit surpasses mine but your logic does not in this matter! but have a good week yourself, whatever you're getting up to.

btw I've just re-read my last post, as I hurried it rather, it seems that this is the killer point in my favour:


Your reasoning is flawed as your 'definition' of a vacuum isn't a definition at all, it's an example.

my definition encompasses all instances of vacuums.

ok I'm outta the door :P
TTFN

Oh and, as and when it is decided that either you, NASA or both of you are the arbiter(s) of use of the English Language then I may perhaps be forced to take heed.

However till then I will be forced to work the old fashioned way and read what the dictionary has to say.

Dictionaries provide definitions, that is their job ever since Dr Johnston had his spiffing idea . So when I quote dictionaries I provide a definition, not an example.


PS, let's look at the etymology of the word

vacuum - 1550, from L. vacuum "an empty space, void," noun use of neuter of vacuus "empty," related to vacare "be empty."

NB Not emptyish


There can't be sound in a space which contains no matter (they should invent a word for that).

[Busyman]

Jumping in late....

The whole argument regarding the sound of the Big Bang is utter bullshit.

How can they reconstruct the sound of the Big Bang if there even was a Big Bang?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@25 June 2004 - 14:35
Jumping in late....

The whole argument regarding the sound of the Big Bang is utter bullshit.

How can they reconstruct the sound of the Big Bang if there even was a Big Bang?
You can't have sound in a vacuum.

[100%]

Who cares about the explanations

The second one sounded great and
has more Conceptual value than most of todays music.

[soopaman]

Originally posted by J'Pol@24 June 2004 - 18:54
You can't have sound in a vacuum.

True but Space isn't completely empty like a true vacuum!!!

[benxuk]

Whether or not you can have sound in a vacuum... you can't have it in space... not the
space they would have heard it in anyway...

:01:

[Yogi]

My vacuum:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/TheDave/yomooticons/FunkyMoticon.jpg

[soopaman]

Originally posted by benxuk@26 June 2004 - 13:29
Whether or not you can have sound in a vacuum... you can't have it in space... not the
space they would have heard it in anyway...

:01:

WTF??

Answers in a language that makes sense please.

[benxuk]

You read the title post? <_<

[soopaman]

Yeah I did read the title but couldn&#39;t make sense of your reply. What is it about the space (where they detected the sound) that makes you think that the scientists can&#39;t detect it??

soopaman

[Barbarossa]

Somethings just dawned on me... :o


The very early universe as theorised by the big bang theory wouldn&#39;t have been a vacuum. It would have been an extrmely highly dense place comprising of superheated plasma and hydrogen and helium ions.

Therefore it maybe possible that sound could have travelled within it. :blink:

[manker]

Originally posted by barbarossa@28 June 2004 - 09:55
Somethings just dawned on me... :o


The very early universe as theorised by the big bang theory wouldn't have been a vacuum. It would have been an extrmely highly dense place comprising of superheated plasma and hydrogen and helium ions.

Therefore it maybe possible that sound could have travelled within it. :blink:
I'm surprised this thread is still alive :o

read the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm) too. it says that the big bang would have taken place in complete silence and that the sounds merely represent occurances thereafter.

for J'Pol:


Dictionaries provide definitions

Granted but dictionaries also provide examples within definitions to help clarify the meaning, thats what you quoted. but of course you knew that already. again, according to any dictionary definition, matter can exist inside a vacuum thus sound can travel within one.


There can't be sound in a space which contains no matter (they should invent a word for that).

Correct but that is not the definition of a vacuum, merely an example.

[Barbarossa]

read the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm) too. it says that the big bang would have taken place in complete silence and that the sounds merely represent occurances thereafter.





The Big Bang would have taken place in complete silence but as the Universe expanded sound waves would have been able to grow.


...what I said! :)

[Yogi]

*Yogi is on moderation for freedom of art, so dares not to express his feelings till

he can have his old sig back&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;*

[Yogi]

Yogi is on moderation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/TheDave/yomooticons/FunkyMoticon.jpg

[Busyman]

Jumping in late....

The whole argument regarding the sound of the Big Bang is utter bullshit.

How can they reconstruct the sound of the Big Bang if there even was a Big Bang?
You can't have sound in a vacuum.
You've said that already.

Forget about the sound. The event of the Big Bang is bullshit so how could they arrive at a pinpointed sound.

[manker]

Jumping in late....

The whole argument regarding the sound of the Big Bang is utter bullshit.

How can they reconstruct the sound of the Big Bang if there even was a Big Bang?
You can't have sound in a vacuum.
You've said that already.

Forget about the sound. The event of the Big Bang is bullshit so how could they arrive at a pinpointed sound.
you dont know that it's bullshit. and they arrived at an approximated sound - obviously not a pinpointed one :rolleyes: - using a method detailed in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm)

[kAb]

Originally posted by Zedaxax@24 June 2004 - 03:46
"Astronomers have recaptured the sounds of the early Universe
showing it was born not with a bang but a quiet whisper that became a dull roar."

Listen Here :
1.The first million years compressed to five seconds : http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000...acenoiseone.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000/rm/_40305671_spacenoiseone.ram)

2.The sound of the Universe when 400,000 years old : http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000...acenoisetwo.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40305000/rm/_40305679_spacenoisetwo.ram)

Read more here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm

"Listening to it I have to say that the Universe is a lousy musical instrument"
Professor Mark Whittle :blink:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40305000/jpg/_40305421_cmb_wmap_203body.jpg
You got them backwards.

[Busyman]

Jumping in late....

The whole argument regarding the sound of the Big Bang is utter bullshit.

How can they reconstruct the sound of the Big Bang if there even was a Big Bang?
You can't have sound in a vacuum.
You've said that already.

Forget about the sound. The event of the Big Bang is bullshit so how could they arrive at a pinpointed sound.
you dont know that it's bullshit. and they arrived at an approximated sound - obviously not a pinpointed one :rolleyes: - using a method detailed in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3832711.stm)
Give it another year or two and there will be another study saying,"Oh no, we were all wrong"...like they know what the Big Bang sounded like.

It's bullshit because first they must prove there was a Big Bang...then they can go about analysing "the so-called background radiation that was born 400,000 years after the Big Bang." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Crockacrap

[Barbarossa]

Somethings just dawned on me... :o


The very early universe as theorised by the big bang theory wouldn't have been a vacuum. It would have been an extrmely highly dense place comprising of superheated plasma and hydrogen and helium ions.

Therefore it maybe possible that sound could have travelled within it. :blink:

What. The. Fuck. :blink:

[manker]

I've looked for this thread like a brazillion times and not been able to find it :o

It's teh hard to read tho' - fix the quotes, Barbie. If it's not too much trouble, like.

[Chip Monk]

Quotes are my fault, obviously.

We should use this as an example to the lolboys of how to argue properly. Using logic, civility and wit. Two chaps who barely know one and other, debating a point but doing it like proper people.

That's the ticket.

It is unfortunate perhaps that such things have been almost totally replaced by posting the word "cawk".

[Barbarossa]

Fuck, that was hard work, and it's still hard to read :ermm:

[manker]

Thanks, Barbie :)

[thewizeard]

What you hear, is the sound of my father, paasing wind, nothing more, nothing less. No big deal.

[Snee]

No capital letters at the beginning of sentences and a lack of proper punctuation.

What was manker thinking?

[Agrajag]

I note you have no problem with him talking pish.

[Snee]

Meh, he does that all the time.

[Agrajag]

Exactly, one continuous stream of hot steaming pish.

It's really quite an achievement.

He also reached the heady depths of nonsense with his whole triangular sandwich thesis. The worst kind of bunkum.

[manker]

No capital letters at the beginning of sentences and a lack of proper punctuation.

What was manker thinking?
Lulling y'all into a false sense of security.

'Who is this new chap that doesn't capitalise his username, cant punctuate for toffee and doesn't start sentences with capital letters. Must be a total retard'.

As you can see in this thread, my newbie technique lulled JP so much that he posted as if half asleep and left pwnage windows open by the arseload :smilie4:

[Chip Monk]

That and you were also a heroin addict at the time.

[manker]

That and you were also a heroin addict at the time.
Yeah, that was fun. It's a shame that it played havoc with my skin so I had to stop.

The occasional pimple was too much to bear :(

[manker]

Exactly, one continuous stream of hot steaming pish.

It's really quite an achievement.

He also reached the heady depths of nonsense with his whole triangular sandwich thesis. The worst kind of bunkum.
Barbie should so find and bump that thread.

I can't remember what I decided about sandwiches of a triangular nature - but I know my Mam was involved and I know that it made hella sense.

[Barbarossa]

Not bumping any more threads because you make me reformat all the quotage :none,butifIwastoputone,itwouldbesnooty:

[manker]

Not bumping any more threads because you make me reformat all the quotage :none,butifIwastoputone,itwouldbesnooty:
:lol: :schnauz:

[Chip Monk]

I think I had larned to quote by that time :barbie:

[Barbarossa]

Yes, but the board hadn't :notdabs: