Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Cog Re: "It's like driving across taxes and only seeing 60 cowboy hats."
Where is Taxes, exactly? I know I have paid a whole lot of money to them over the years, but I don't recall ever visiting the place.
@ Diotrephes
Can you not see the fallacy? Your stepping into another of my fields of speciality. These voids, as you call, if they block light, cannot be voids. To be blocking light, there must be something there to block the light. Thus, they are not voids. As Cognostic said, we have pointed many telescopes towards those voids. And we have seen stars and galaxies through them. We have known for a few decades that those voids are actually dust filled. That is what blocks the light, a very thick dust.
"You wouldn't experience anything because you wouldn't exist at all."
Completely wrong. You would experience a muted visual perception due to the dust within those voids. The only reason they are called voids is due to the fact no stars developed there for some as yet undiscovered reason. We have top scientists working on it, and we'll get back to you on that.
rmfr
arakish,
I know that there are a few galaxies in the voids but most of the area is empty. They are not like normal space. My theory is that the voids are composed mostly of celestial hydrogen and subatomic particles that are forming hydrogen atoms.
Stars can't exist until there is sufficient hydrogen. So either the voids represent the beginning of creation or the end of matter in that area. Isn't that fascinating?
NO the area is not empty,. It is completely full. There is no such thing as "Empty Space." It does not exist. It is full of neutrinos, Higgs particles, billions of planets, galaxies and more. Look up "quantum foam" and see if that helps you out. Not only is it not empty but particles of matter pop into existence and then just fade away in such vast proportions your mind could not fathom a single square inch of this stuff you call void. Void is something made up by 1060s science fiction movies. VOID DOES NOT EXIST.
If you went to the most sparse portion of the known universe, an area of (for example) a billion light years in volume, where the count of atoms/particles is the lowest in the universe, it is still not "nothing". Light photons and many other forms of radiation are passing through it. Gravity has an influence, and time too.
And since that phenomenally sparse area of the known universe has properties, it is not "nothing".
"Nothing" is the complete absence of any physical object and anything with properties (gravity, radiation). Thus, it does not exist in our known universe, being at best an abstract concept.
There are no empty spots in our wondrous universe. We have used optical telescopes to explore this universe, but in the last hundred years we have been able to use other tools, especially radio telescopes and infra red. Being able to examine beyond our eye's optical wavelength via such instruments as infra red and other frequencies such as X-rays yields a lot more data.
Our galaxy we refer to as "The Milky Way" is a flat bar spiral, a flattened disk. Most of the galaxy occupies the flat portion, and since we lay in that area, the center of the galaxy is obscured by dust. Which is a shame because that part of the galaxy is the brightest and most active. But until now we have only seen a dark region because the dust blocks on the optical wavelength our eyes use.
Tools that use different wavelengths of radiation can "see through" that dust, and now we have begun to properly examine the center of the galaxy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrY4g522q8
Excellent post, I am going to borrow your definition of nothing from time to time if I may.
"Nothing" is the complete absence of any physical object and anything with properties (gravity, radiation). Thus, it does not exist in our known universe, being at best an abstract concept."
The last nails it for me, "an abstract concept" I mean we can say things like the complete negation of everything, but a few moments thought and we start to realise just how abstract a concept nothing is.
arakish,
"Can you not see the fallacy? Your stepping into another of my fields of speciality. These voids, as you call, if they block light, cannot be voids. To be blocking light, there must be something there to block the light. Thus, they are not voids."
Thank you and everyone else who has chimed in on this issue. I've been thinking about it and maybe I used the wrong words to describe the problem So allow me to begin again.
When we look out into deep space we see globs of blackness that might be hundreds of millions of light years in extent. The question is why do we see such areas when they are so far away? In normal space, as in our neighborhood, there are layers and layers of galaxies extending for billions of light years. But when we look at some areas of the cosmos we can't see the number of galaxies that we should expect to see in that area based upon what we see in other areas of the cosmos.
Don't you think that we should be able to see all of the galaxies that exist between us and the black globs? If we could see them then we shouldn't be able to see the black globs. Do you agree?
Imagine a clear glass floor sprinkled with countless sparkling lights. Now imagine that someone places pieces of black cloth under the clear glass floor. The cloth is not over the lights but under them. But when that happens you can no longer see the lights as you can in in other areas, all you see is the blackness. How can you explain why you no longer see the lights that are in front of the black cloth?
In the case of the cosmic voids shouldn't we be able to see the galaxies that are in front of the black voids? If we could see all of the galaxies that should be visible as they are in other areas wouldn't their light overcome the giant black voids' blackness?
So the question "is there something about the voids' blackness that steals the light from the galaxies between us and it so that we can't see their light but only the voids' blackness?"
Remember, the question is why can't we see the lights that should be in front of the voids in the same proportion as we see in other areas of the cosmos? For if we could then we shouldn't be able to see the blackness because light overcomes darkness.
Depends on the density of the sprinkled lights, size of the cloth, and distance to the cloth. Or in other words, with the right settings of those values, there won't be lights in front of the cloth. With other settings the light from the lights in front of the cloths will be so weak you won't be able to detect it. In both cases you would see the same thing, that is no light.
But your analogy of a black cloth is terrible. The universe is isotropic and homogeneous to an extremely high precision. These voids you are suggesting would violate that quite badly. You have picked up some "information" that isn't consistent with the standard model, or observation (that these voids exist). That is the source of your confusion, IMO.
You should read about the Hubble deep field observations (Cognostic was discussing earlier). They take the telescope and examine regions of space where nothing can be seen with the eye and weaker telescopes, and gather images of thousands of hidden galaxies. Or to put it back into your analogy; we find that if we measure carefully in any location that appear black, that we do in fact find thousands of lights there. Just another confirmation of the homogeneous and isotropic postulates of the standard model.
Nyarlathotep,
"Depends on the density of the sprinkled lights, size of the cloth, and distance to the cloth. Or in other words, with the right settings of those values, there won't be lights in front of the cloth. With other settings the light from the lights in front of the cloths will be so weak you won't be able to detect it. In both cases you would see the same thing, that is no light."
So is your contention that a black glob behind sparkling lights (galaxies) will overcome the light emitted from thousands of galaxies in front of it? Does that really work that way in the real world? Remember that we can galaxies a very long way from us and that their light output is within a certain range in every direction that we look at.
It is estimated that on a dark night that the average person could see a candle flame flickering up to 30 miles away. Now think about that. There is darkness in front of and behind that candle but you can still see that tiny light 30 miles away.
But in the case of the cosmic voids you can't see the number of galaxies that should be visible in the area in front of the voids.
It is estimated that the Bootes Void is about 700 million light years from us. It is estimated that there is over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Yet when we look into the cosmos we don't see the number of galaxies that we should expect to see in front of the cosmic voids. Don't you think that there should be a very large number of galaxies between us and the Bootes Void which is over 700 million light years from us? So what happened to them that prevents us from seeing their light?
In astronomy, they have a very simple reference, that "brightness means closeness". And thus, anything very distant is extremely dim. And this universe is absolutely huge. Our Milky way is just one of 200 billion galaxies, and for anyone to travel from one side of the Milky way to the other would take one hundred thousand years if you traveled at the speed of light. The nearest galaxy is two million light years distant.
The thing is, this entire universe is permeated by vast amounts of gas and dust. That alone is a huge amount. So many stellar objects are obscured by this gas and dust.
And that is the simple answer, suns and galaxies can be so far away even the Hubble has great difficulty in picking them up. And all around, there are vast clouds of gas and dust that also block and obscure those stellar objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7NzjCmUf0&t=10s
I did not say that, hint that, suggest that, nor do I believe that. How you got that from what I said, I have no idea. The fact that you can't get it is worrisome.
---------------------------------------------------
I very carefully explained two ways that can happen. I'm starting to suspect that you don't want to learn, and I'm wasting my time trying to teach you anything.
First off the Bootes "Void" contains a conservative estimate of 6,000,000,000,000 stars.
Since it isn't on the galactic plane I wouldn't expect to see much in front of it. And that is a very important point you should consider. It is almost a tautology that there isn't much between us and almost any distant observation. You don't want to point your super sensitive telescope into the galactic plane to make intergalactic observations, for the same reason you don't point your telescope at the Earth. You don't want anything substantial to be between yourself and the area you are trying to examine.
Nyarlathotep,
"Since it isn't on the galactic plane I wouldn't expect to see much in front of it. And that is a very important point you should consider."
While that may be a valid point in regard to the Bootes Void how do you explain the countless other voids that surround us in all directions? Why don't galaxies block them?
Bonus question: Have you ever considered the possibility that our very own galaxy group is in a void? Other people have although their buddies don't want to buy into that idea. The skeptics seem to like the idea that we are in a rose bed instead of in a pile of shit like everyone else.
I like how you used a large number (6,000,000,000,000 stars) as evidence to support your argument when we were discussing galaxies and not stars. It is estimated that there is 1 trillion stars in the Andromeda Galaxy. So 6 trillion stars in an area as large as the Bootes Void is really insignificant since that would be only about 6 galaxies the size of Andromeda.
"Next Stop: Voids"
"Our next contender is the Boötes (boh-OH-teez) Void (or the Great Void, for the more dramatic), discovered in 1981 and located in the vicinity of the constellation of the same name. At 250 to 330 million light years across, the Boötes Void is one of the largest voids out there that we’ve discovered. So far 60 galaxies have been discovered in the Boötes Void and all of those are found in a tube shape running through the void. For a fun thought experiment consider the distance between us and our closest galactic neighbor, Andromeda. At about 2.5 million light years, this would only cover about 1% of the Boötes Void. If we are to use a rough estimate of about 1 galaxy every 10 million light years (4 times farther than Andromeda) there should be approximately 2,000 galaxies in the Boötes Void. It’s thought that this void might have been created by the merging of smaller voids. Expressing the vastness that is the Boötes Void, astronomer Greg Aldering said, “If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn’t have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s.” (For comparison, we first discovered other galaxies in the 1920s.)"
https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2013/07/30/jasons-blog-nex...
"Does the Milky Way Live in a Void?
By: Monica Young | June 21, 2017"
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/does-milky-way-live-cosmi...
"We Live in a Cosmic Void, Another Study Confirms"
The KBC void
"The cosmic void that contains the Milky Way's is dubbed the Keenan, Barger and Cowie (KBC) void, after the three astronomers who identified it in the 2013 study. It is the largest cosmic void ever observed — about seven times larger than the average void, with a radius of about 1 billion light-years, according to the study."
https://www.space.com/37191-we-live-in-a-cosmic-void.html
"Researchers explore the voids between superclusters
By Deborah Byrd in Space | March 18, 2018"
https://earthsky.org/space/analysis-of-gas-in-cosmic-voids-superclusters...
As with anything in life the answer you get depends on the question you ask.
It is generally accepted that the universe is filled with voids. But what is a void? It is a bubble where the galaxies are not uniformly dispersed. Most galaxies are actually on the edges of the bubbles, not inside the bubbles. While there may be a huge number of galaxies inside the bubble the space is so large that their density is low in comparison to the number on the edges.
This illustrates the importance of understanding complex issues and not offering simplistic answers.
@Diotrephes
Listen, I already took the time to explain to you some of the parameters that determine such things. And that different values of these parameters give very different results. Are you going to address those? Because until you do, I'm not really interested in your guesses. If you are right, something is fundamentally wrong with our view of the universe. But you aren't going to convince us with with your hand waving complaints; you need to do the hard work and make it available to others.
Nyarlathotep,
So do you discount the scientists' hypothesis that we are in a void ourselves? They estimate that our void could be 3 billion light years in diameter. How cool is that? I'll bet that impresses the hell out of the folks in the 330 million light year diameter Bootes Void.
@Diotrephes
Not in the slightest. What I'm discounting is your non-sense statements about the simple arrangement of objects.
Nyarlathotep,
"What I'm discounting is your non-sense statements about the simple arrangement of objects."
Don't you know that the vast majority of galaxies in the cosmos form the "shells" of the voids? They are on the "surface" of the voids and not inside the voids themselves. https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/does-milky-way-live-cosmi... Although there might be in excess of 200 billion galaxies in the visible universe most of the cosmos is fairly empty. Stuff is not distributed equally.
The idea that stuff is distributed equally (on the large scale) is essentially a restatement of two of the postulates of the standard model of cosmology. I'd go so far as to say the two most important postulates. It is essentially the first thing taught in any cosmology course. And if you want to reject those postulates, that is fine; but then you aren't doing standard model cosmology, you are doing Diotrephes's model of cosmology. And I'd love to review your model, but you haven't presented it in a useful way, and I suspect doing so would be rather difficult.
Nyarlathotep,
"The idea that stuff is distributed equally (on the large scale) is essentially a restatement of two of the postulates of the standard model of cosmology. I'd go so far as to say the two most important postulates. It is essentially the first thing taught in any cosmology course."
If you think about it should be obvious that the idea that stuff is distributed equally on a cosmic scale is completely nonsense. If it was then there would be no gigantic voids or walls of galaxies. Maybe the teachers should do some research. Sometimes it pays to do your own thinking instead of relying on "authority figures". Isn't that why you are an atheist?
Diotrephes, I've tried to be nice but that has come to an end. You're a crackpot.
Nyarlathotep,
Why do you think stuff is distributed equally in the cosmos? It doesn't work that way with all of the voids. https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDo...
"Don't you think that we should be able to see all of the galaxies that exist between us and the black globs? "
We do see galaxies between us and the black globs. What makes you think we don't. We see galaxies inside the black globs. And even more, when we get out the big telescopes, we find galaxies upon galaxies that we have never seen before. Like Adam said to Eve. "Stand Back!! I have no idea at all how big this thing gets. "
Thank you, I found Diotrephes post on the previous page to be a little off, glad you and others chimes in here. Yes, I wasn’t sure if a true void could exist in this universe which is why I included that in my post but it makes sense that no true void could exist inside the universe. If it did exist, no doubt it would be shocking. That begs the question: can something be born from a void? As in, can something truly come from nothing, in the purest sense? I am not a cosmologist but I’ve heard a few theories on it but couldn’t understand it.
Chicken,
"As in, can something truly come from nothing, in the purest sense?"
What are new stars made of? Celestial hydrogen. Older stars have a multitude of heavier elements, such as helium, iron, gold, oxygen, and so forth. So where did those elements come from if not from the initial hydrogen? And since all of those other elements came from hydrogen where did the hydrogen come from? It came from elemental sub-atomic particles. And where did those elemental sub-atomic particles come from? Continue the regression and you will end up with nothing. Our problem is that we don't understand the properties of nothing. What happens when absolutely nothing exists in any form? So when you reach that part nothing creates something and that something keeps evolving until it
produces everything that we are aware of today. In the future new things will be created and reality will be different than what it is now, just like it is different from what it was 7 billion years ago.
Are you familiar with distilled water and evaporative humidifiers? Well you use the distilled water in the humidifier to increase the humidity in a room so that you will be more comfortable, especially during the winter when the heater is running and drying out the air. So you fill the humidifier with the distilled water, which is pure. Then, over time guess what happens? If you don't clean the humidifier you will soon see that algae is forming in the water tank. So how in the hell did the algae get in there and grow when you were using distilled water and heat to vaporize it? Where did the algae come from? It came from the water that you thought was pure and it is in the water that yo drink but you never notice it because you can't see it. But it will grow from nothing into an ugly mess if you ignore it. That is how the universe functions. It creates new things from nothing.
edit spelling
@Diotrephes
"What are new stars made of? Celestial hydrogen. Older stars have a multitude of heavier elements, such as helium, iron, gold, oxygen, and so forth. So where did those elements come from if not from the initial hydrogen? And since all of those other elements came from hydrogen where did the hydrogen come from? It came from elemental sub-atomic particles. And where did those elemental sub-atomic particles come from? Continue the regression and you will end up with nothing. Our problem is that we don't understand the properties of nothing. What happens when absolutely nothing exists in any form? So when you reach that part nothing creates something and that something keeps evolving until it
produces everything that we are aware of today. In the future new things will be created and reality will be different than what it is now, just like it is different from what it was 7 billion years ago."
That is an incorrect analogy.
The earliest stars were just hydrogen and helium. Stars are nuclear furnaces, and deep within their cores they could manufacture up to iron. Heavier elements require supernovas or other violent events (gold comes from binary neutron stars). From those stellar explosions elements were scattered through the universe.
Yes, we can work backwards, but we arrive at the beginning of the rapid expansion, which was incredibly tiny in dimension but also incredibly hot. It did not spring out of nothing, we do not know what occurred before the rapid expansion. Even physicists are unsure what happened before, all they have are various hypothesis.
No physicists will agree that this singularity came from "nothing".
Chicken, when the Big bang was discovered and revealed to the public, there was also an earlier discovery in quantum physics, that particles could pop in and out of existence. So when asked what came before the big bang, some linked the two, and the common misconception that the universe popped out of nothing was born.
Of course the theist apologists jumped on that, and have never let go, despite the fact that physicists have moved on and are working on understanding what happened before the big bang.
"quantum physics, that particles could pop in and out of existence"
In fairness, they do not pop into existence out of nothing. (That should probably also be mentioned.) The theory goes that energy is slowed down by the Higgs field and manifests as material, popping into existence, prior to fading back out of existence. Einstein's basic Energy = mass x circumference squared.
I hope that was a joke.
--- Circumference ---- SOL + C^2 ---- Shhh! You are the only one to comment. Same thing isn't it.
There is no "nothing." We have no example of it anywhere. It is a mathematical probability and not something pragmatic. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever of nothing. Not even the space in an atom. Nothing is nowhere.
Pages