Is the Big Bang a Fraud?

"If the universe is 14 billion years old, how could two galaxies (ours and the observed) have traveled 13 billion light years apart in only 1 billion years ?"

I guess this has been covered in #18 and #50 above. Note that the separation between us and the observed galaxy increased by about 3 billion light years in the first 1 billion years. It is 13 billion light years today, not then.

So the average apparent recession speed was about 3c, due to the fact that theory holds that it was the intervening space that expanded, not a movement of matter through space.

-J

If there is (relativistic) time dilation to the extent of time slowing by thirteen times then one can perhaps have a 13 billion light year travel (at near but less than speed of light) in an apparent 1 billion years.

The light was created in place.

I propose that perhaps the speed of light is not constant and that it slows down as it reaches resistance.

Total baloney.

And also contrary to post 169, to which it was responding.

Evidence is in the mind of the beholder. If you look for waves, you find waves, if you look for particles you find particles. If you don't look for ___ you don't find ___.

So...................what existed before the big bang?

Something was there........................what was it?

It is virtually impossible to realistically theorize that question, let alone answer it.

However, in some theories "nothing" needed to be there at all.

I am still very busy (as most of us are) just trying to get a basic understanding of what happened from T0 forward. I am (for one) am not quite ready to debate seriously what happened before that. However, it remains a good question that perhaps somehow someone will be able to shed some light on.

A lot of you guys are way ahead of me. I'm still grappling with the meaning of "infinite".

Somehow, I don't think I will ever understand it. It's the bane of people with thinking problems. How in the hell can something be solved that has no end?

Are you having a problem with the meaning of the number infinity or that something can be infinite yet defined?

#3#38 relate to this discussion.

As for infinity, the next time you go to the beach, Grasshopper, start counting the grains of sand.

Ok, never mind grains, just count hands full. Report back when finished with this task.

Consider that task as a raisin, in a sea of rice pudding. When we're done with the raisins, we'll start on the rice.

Now, there's some infinity for you to ponder.

I agree. Grasping 'infinity' is a difficult concept, as is 'nothing'. Perhaps the human mind has not yet developed enough to do it. I appreciate it is philosophy rather than science but we have to make do with what we've got.

Interestingly, infinity, meaning going on forever, might be difficult to understand. But equally at the same time, if we said the universe does not go on forever, then our mind immediately asks what the universe is in, what is beyond it. And if that stops, what is beyond that?

Similarly the universe, if starting at the big bang, we ask what came before.

And mathematically, why not 0/0 =1?, or ∞/∞=1.

I read a mathematics book written by an 8-year-old girl, she understood the world in a different way than us, too bad she died at 9 years old, but her demonstrations live on. She said, "To understand infinity, take two mirrors and face them at one another. Now look into the left and suppose that one to be negative infinity and the right to be positive infinity." You can take it from there. I wish I could've met her!

A good example of infinity is traveling on a circle. Where is the beginning and where is the end?

Thanks. The notion of "nothing" is impossible.

"Nothing" never could have existed. If it did, we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

Something we would all like to know! Really I don't think there was a Big Bang, but that's just me.

There's a classic analogy to the expanding universe. Imagine two marks on a balloon that is being blown up. As the balloon gets bigger, the marks get farther apart. But the reason they're getting farther apart is not because they're moving on the surface of the balloon: it's because the surface is stretching. The expanding universe is like that. Parts of the universe that were once close together are now far apart, not because they have moved through space, but because the space has expanded. In consequence, speed--as in the speed of light--doesn't come into the picture.

"The entropy of the universe is increasing" Fundamental law of physics.

So ultimately all energy will exist in the form of entropy. (Negative ultimate) But an instant before the negative ultimate there will be the last few scraps of matter. At this point does gravitational attraction become the dominant force. If so all energy would clump together to form a singularity increasing the pressure at the centre. So ultimately all energy would exist as a singularity. (Positive ultimate) But the instant before the positive ultimate there would be the last few scrape of entropy causing irregularities in the singularity. This could cause a big bang starting the whole cycle off again. We exist in one of the expanding phases, so there would be no way of us knowing the conditions in a contracting phase.

What is our universe expanding into? Maybe one or more other parts of the megaverse that is contracting. That puts a physical definition on the mathematical concept of infinity.

Are black holes mini examples of this process in action?

This is my "cyclic universe theory" containing both posiverses (expanding) and negiverses (contracting). You heard it here first folks, on CR4

Who says nothing can travel beyond speed of light?

Like a tree branches out - may be there was a single seed and a single black hole. Were more black holes get generated - like a tree giving rise to branches and flowers and seeds - which could then become seeds (origin) for newer trees?

Spiritually speaking - Look at case of constructing a room. Space already existed. The 4 walls just enclosed a space. Space was not created.

Similarly the orange, blue, green photons moved out in above picture in vacuum. Infinite space existed far beyond imagination even before photons occupied the spaces indicated above. Space never expanded!!!! Similarly movement of one photon relative to another can be at speeds more than light - without disproving laws of physics on the earth.

Out of my deapth, but is the' big bang/big collapse' hypothesis junk ? I'd not have noticed this discussion, but the bioflik 'Hawking' was on the other day. I managed about two chapters of his first book before I banged my head on a wall. CR4 has an ucanny nack of providing good explanations that a layman can comprehend - thanks for asking a question that will illicit some good replies. Michio Maku has a current tV series here, and it's mind blowing to watch.

I love listening to Michio as well. He explains things so a dumb hack like me can understand them.

As a simple engineer I tend to stick to proven data and formulas used in such a way that by interpolation you can predict results within the bounds of known data with very high degrees of confidence.

Once you try to predict results by extrapolation to points well outside known data you could be miles out. So using a couple of hundred years of scientific data can we confidently extrapolate it to predict something that happened 14 billion years ago, or in the future? The red shift to predict an expanding universe might be wrong.

I have a theory that this new found Dark Matter could be red. A 'fog' or 'haze' so incredibly thin that it is impossible to 'see' it until it is a couple of billion light years thick - and gradually denser until it obscures light from anything beyond the cosmic horizon.

Another thing, it puzzles me, if we can see things as they were 14 billion years ago at the start of the big bang, then all the stars would be touching each other.

Also, in which direction do we point our telescopes to see the start of the big bang.

But we can see into space for 14 billion light years in any direction then we see the surface of the singularity of time wherever we look. For this to happen, we must be iunder the surface of the singularity - inside.

Or if on the 'surface' of an expanding universe, and if gravity bends light towards itself, then with a powerful enough magical telescope we would see the back of our necks - albeit red.

As already stated, it's fun to theorize.

The reason we can't see all the stars touching each other is that we can't see back that far in time.

Remember, there is very good evidence that the universe did not expand in a linear fashion, but had an epoch where it expanded to a size that is almost the size we observe now and did that expansion in an incredibly tiny fraction of a second.

Our telescopes can't even see back that far because the light from that post inflationary period hasn't even reach us yet.

Remember, space expanded far, far faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period, so most of the universe is beyond our visual horizon.

We tend to think that the universe is only 14 billion light years in radius because the age of the universe is 14 billion years old, but the true diameter of the universe is perhaps up to 50 billion light years across.

I already explained that, at least in part.

There is supporting evidence for a rapid inflation phase because the CMB is very homogeneous.

Inflaton field theory does not require any new laws of physics.

Again, when you do not understand enough of the science, it always looks like black magic. This is complex and heady stuff and there is a lot to it, more so than trying to understand all the buttons on one's DVD player (which I am still struggling with).

"The reason we can't see all the stars touching each other is that we can't see back that far in time."

There was never a time when the stars and planets were bunched up together. They were (and continue to be) formed gradually over very long periods of time.

One of the issues I have with current theory is that the time scale seems wrong. Go out to sea on a clear, moonless night, far from shore and interfering lights (typically more than 200 miles from the American coasts), and have a look at how many stars are visible to the naked eye (and, bear in mind, many of what you perceive as stars are actually galaxies containing billions of stars each), and bear in mind that only a very small percentage of the stars that we can detect are actually visible to the naked eye.

Now, consider that it took an estimated 4 billion years to build our solar system, maybe ten billion years to build the Milky Way (I'm not sure of that last one- some sources give it an age of 13.2 billion years).

It just doesn't seem reasonable to me that all those stars and galaxies could have been created from some primordial point source and expanded to fill the apparent space they occupy in only 13.9 billion years...

The Big Bang is a theory, not a fact, there are and always have been questions raised by it. NASA, CALTech, JPL and others have lots of info on this. Lots of interesting stuff on dimensional collision too

Another simple minded engineer, let me see where I am.

Everything is expanding in some way which creates the space it's expanding into.

If we reverse this we conclude that it all started with a big bang, but not exactly "started" because time itself didn't exist nor the space to put the stuff into create a big bang.

But having got started it all settled down to modern day physics, at least on our scale, and this includes the energy condensing into matter. But the matter itself now seems to be an illusion, made up of all kinds of energy packets. Energy...so what's energy?

There's a problem, what is energy without the word "energy"?

Then we have infinite scales of time forward, and of space going larger and smaller. Smaller can go on forever as there may be universes within each atom, we can always divide by ten, and larger can go on forever unless time and the expansion stops.

The only topic left is: who am I to be watching all this? Some famous academic has remarked on this with words like "the only thing more amazing than the physical universe is the fact that I am consciously aware of it all"

Yes.

To me a universe that is constantly expanding and has no end (in other words goes on indefinitely), is obvious. In fact I don't know how or why anyone could see it any other way. The way people have tried to get around that is to envision a universe that forms an infinite loop. I imagine they did that to try and make it work with mathematics. Looking back, at one point we thought the earth was flat. But not being able to accept the idea of it going on indefinitely, people assumed you would fall of the edge at some point. Now we know the earth to be round (Kind of like the infinite loop without the twist.). Anyway, we're no longer concerned with that. But now we're looking at outward at space.

Thinking of space going on forever is easy, and you almost can't imagine anything else. Because if it ends, where and how. Now it's another story when it comes to the infinitely small. To imagine things getting smaller forever doesn't sit so well. But I would have to say that's exactly the case.

As far as the big bang goes... You might say we're in a quest for the alpha and the omega . If we can except the idea of space going on in either direction indefinitely, then the fact that we see everything expanding doesn't mean it had to have a central starting point, let alone a starting point to begin with. It has always been expanding, and always will. And I might add considering a constantly expanding universe, that from our point of view matter would appear to be be coming out of nowhere. Which in some way I guess it is.

I suppose mathematicians would reject this theory because it doesn't deal with the finite, or something you can put a value on. But I'm comfortable with it. It lets me believe there are infinite possibilities.

Its not possible to know that stars are 13 billion light years away. Calculating is done by parralax trigonometry. It is using the earth on opposite sides of the sun as a base of a triangle and measuring the object you're looking at by the difference observed from one position of the earth and then 6 months later measuring again. The earth doesn't travel very far when compared to measuring something billions of light years away. That's like two people standing shoulder to shoulder and telling each other the difference they see in an objects millions of miles away. You can't measure anything like that with any accuracy at all.

Long distance stellar measurements don't work.

Baloney. You don't have any idea of what you are talking about.

Tornado is correct. Read up on "Red shift".

Read up on how red shift measurements are calibrated, your self.

The distance to the closest stars have been directly measured by parallax. It is these direct measurements of the closest stars that help to calibrate the red shift distance measurement technique for distant stars. Friedrich Bessel used parallax to measure the distance to 61 Cygni in 1838 to be 3.18 parsecs. As a matter of reference a parsec is the distance measured using parallax.

It was a reply to #87 wherein it was claimed that parallax was the only way and that it wouldn't work at distance.

So what was wrong in telling him look at redshift?

Parallax is the only way to make a direct measurement of the distance to a star. Redshift measurements indirectly measure the distance to stars at greater distances with greater uncertainty than parallax measurements. In #87 amosman brings up an important point that many overlook. With the exception of a few neighboring stars like Vega, the uncertainty of our astronomic dimension measurements is huge.

We are at sea level and I speed right past you and am moving west, away from you at 12.5 miles per minute.

By the time you honk at me to slow down, I am already a little over half a mile away from you.

Since it is a calm day your angry honk reaches me when I am about 38 miles away and the distance your signal traveled was 38 miles in 3 minutes. I would be receiving a signal from an angry honker 38 miles away and 3 sound-minutes away, even though three minutes ago, we were only a little more than half a mile away.

Another day, I am traveling west at 12.5 miles per minute and pass very close to you. Again, you angrily honked when i am already half a mile away. Unlike the calm previous day, today a fast northerly wind blows at 12 miles per minute where you are and extending 19 miles west. West of that, a fast southerly wind blows at 12 miles per minute.

Although your second signal did not exceed the speed of sound, and your angry honk still reaches me after 3 minutes when I am 38 miles away, your signal will have traveled much farther on this windy day.

The thing that you are missing is that the medium through which the signal is traveling is shifting and expanding.

Your explanation would have the noise exceed the "speed of sound", regardless of what you say to the contrary.

I don't see a connection to the current discussion.

Could you put it in terms of raisins in a sea of rice pudding?

Seriously, G** only knows who's right here.

Is there anybody left that I haven't insulted, yet?

amosman, you should brush up on "speed of light". Your source may be out dated.

It's not the sh*t I know that bothers me. It's the sh*t I don't know, that keeps me goin'.

You need to join "Knowledge Anonymous". I have.

When you get depressed because you are a dumb sh*t, they send someone over to drink with you until the feeling goes away.

I'll sponsor you, brother.

Sponsor me too lyn. In 24 hours I have found out how much of a dumb sh*t I am.

Come on down!!! There's plenty of room for all.

I'm actually a charter member, with privileges!

After just a few "treatments", my IQ (Ignorance Quotient) has remained virtually unchanged, but I don't give a sh*t any more.

Peace and tranquility, brother, that's where it's all at.

_{These discussions do actually give me a headache. I don't understand any of it.}

Wow!!!!!! After reading all the posts, I feel like I have just finished "2" marathon's in a row.

You puny humans! You have no idea what you are missing out on - other dimensions, other universes, infinity. How sad.

Great first post! You are a philosopher of humanity.

Shall we take up a collection for a new keyboard for you, too? :)

hey thanks i will be waiting for that collection plate lol! on a more serious note if the universe is expanding where is it expanding to is the more important thing because it could just stop just as quikly as it started does everybody get my drift? im not saying im right but im very smart and to the googleplex1000th power and im a engineer, general contractor,reading teacher,and arts-entertainment producer,a dad,and a fine lover of life. so if anybody has the knowledge to explain to me the truth and the whole truth please reach out because curious minds want to know? where are we going in this universe or where did we come from? im talking about the bang and then mankind it self. oh what is the combinded mass of all the planets stars and moons? now put this puzzel together then you might come up with the total size of object that went bang!!!!! stay tuned for more I have a half ass answer for the hungry minds of the world

I think you underestimated the void.

For starters, ditch the all-caps. The shouting is even worse when it is all drivel.

On what evidence do you base your wild proclamations outrageous statements lunatic ravings? Was it a movie, or a book, or a divine revelation?

Oh, never mind. It was interesting enough that I read the whole rant. (Shaking head as I went)

If you think I'm being sarcastic, I am.

Read the FAQ's.

test

Rather than answer to OP, may I question some assumptions. All the calculations are based on the premise that the speed of light when passing through a vacuum is constant. But we know that when light moves through different mediums eg water, it slows down.

What happens to the theory and the mathematics if the nature of the vacuum is changing? Would the transition of energy to matter, or the balance of matter/dark matter modify the parameters of an "absolute" vacuum? It could change so slowly that over the few years that we have been measuring the speed of light we are unable to observe any change?

The current theory is that there was a transition from the expansion phase to the current phase. What triggered that transition is not explained. If the speed of light is in fact decreasing over time, do you need an expansion phase to explain events?

I think Jorrie can better add to this, but there are many ways to determine the speed of light (and other physical properties) and at large distances (which translates to events in the past when looking deep into space) we observe that the universe obeys the same laws 13 billion years ago as it does today.

There are many clues we can deduce from the data at hand and everything ticks and ties with the Standard Model we have been building over time.

You wrote, "What triggered that transition is not explained."

Actually, I touched on that in post #18. The driving mechanisms are a little complex and for the sake of brevity I did not go into a lot of details. If you are really interested I can try to write up a little better explanation when I have some spare time or you can Google Inflaton Fields yourself.

You wrote, "do you need an expansion phase to explain events?"

It would seem to be the best answer. For one thing there is no known mechanism to drive the change in the speed of light over time and the change would have to be pretty drastic. It is an interesting though, but in order for that idea to gain traction there has to be some physical law behind it or it is simply open speculation with no data to support it, which is cause for a quick dismissal.

One more question (I have limited storage).

Jorrie explains that some of the light currently reaching us originated from a distance of 3 billion light years away, and those objects (13 billion years later) are currently 30 billion light years away.

Does this mean that the current rate of expansion is about twice the speed of light ?

Thanks Jorrie. That exactly answers what I poorly asked.

I just can't quit; this stuff is fascinating.

If space time is expanding, why would not the distance from our star to the center of the Milky Way also not be expanding?

Space is expanding, When we observe a moving object, we see its clock running slower (hours getting longer) and measuring rods gettting shorter. So if space (and measuring rod) is getting larger, perhaps time is shrinking.

Just a throwaway, I don't know the answer.

WJMFIRE asked: "If space time is expanding, why would not the distance from our star to the center of the Milky Way also not be expanding?"

The simple answer is that our galaxy is much denser than the average space out there, so its mutual gravity keeps the expansion in check. In fact, the Milky Way (MW) would have collapsed on itself if it was not rotating.

Since it seems that you like straightforward math, see what you get for the recession rate of the Sun from the center of the MW, if we ignore the local over-density, i.e assume that our galaxy simply expands with the whole.

Use Ho = 70 km/s/Mpc, where 1 Mpc = 3.26 million light years. We are about 27,000 light years from the center of the MW.

-J

Jorrie asked: Since it seems that you like straightforward math, see what you get for the recession rate of the Sun from the center of the MW, if we ignore the local over-density, i.e assume that our galaxy simply expands with the whole.
We would be receding 1890 light years per year from the center of the MW, unless I have overlooked something here.

"We would be receding 1890 light years per year from the center of the MW, unless I have overlooked something here."

Wow, it surely looks like you have overlooked some units, at least.

The correct answer is about 2 km per hour.

The calculation looks something like this:

70 km/s/Mpc translates to about 0.08 km/h per light year

Multiply that by the distance to the MW center (~27 light years) and we get about 2 km per hour. Compare that to the Sun's orbital speed around the center, about 300 km per second.

The point I wanted to illustrate is that the at the scale of a single galaxy, the cosmic recession speeds would have been negligible, even in the absence of gravity. You agree?

-J

Sorry about that. This is what happens when I have 4 cocktails with friends and try to do math late at night.

WJMFIRE,

This is for you,

"Well, a man's got to believe something, and I believe I'll have another drink," Peter de Vries's, The Vale of Laughter (1967).

Thanks, I think the shoe fits.

If the side of a square increases by 7% the adjacent corner moves away by 7%. but the opposite corner moves away by just under 10% (by Pythagoras). If the square is one side of a cube the opposite corner in the adjacent plane moves away by just over 12%. If the universe is expanding at the same rate in three dimensions, how can objects viewed in different parts of the sky all move away from us at the same rate?

Even if we view galaxies from a point at the centre of a series of concentric spheres. Two galaxies approximately the same distance away, in line of sight would move apart by 7% while two galaxies at an angle of 90ºapart in the sky would actually move apart by 7% x 2∏ x 90/360 = 11% relative to each other.

The angles we view the galaxies at remain unchanged so we wouldn't see any movement, just a reduction in light intensity corresponding to the increased 7% distance from us.

Viewed from a different part of the universe the two galaxies that we see as 90º apart might be aligned. An observer there would see an 11% increase (actually slightly more because where we are viewing two galaxies in the same concentric sphere they are viewing galaxies in two distinct spheres that have an increasing distance separating them) in the same time as we see a 7% increase and conclude that the universe is expanding faster. Please explain the paradox.

"If the side of a square increases by 7% the adjacent corner moves away by 7%. but the opposite corner moves away by just under 10% (by Pythagoras)."

Nope, think again!

A 7% increase for any side means 7% everywhere on a square, cube, triangle, whatever. A square with a 100 mm side will become a 107 mm side. The diagonal will be originally be 141 mm and it will increase by 9.9 mm, but it is still 7% of the original 141 mm diagonal.

Same for concentric spheres.

"The angles we view the galaxies at remain unchanged so we wouldn't see any movement, just a reduction in light intensity corresponding to the increased 7% distance from us."

We would also notice an increased redshift, which can be interpreted as a change in recession speed, or as a 7% change in distance.

I do not spot the paradox you talk about.

I see where I went wrong, I referenced all the changes back to the original side length. Thank you for putting me right. Sometimes I can be humble, other times I just feel like a right idiot.

Idiots hardly ever make mistakes, in their own eyes. The rest of us make our mistakes, be humble about it and in the process learn something. So, let's keep making them...

jhhassociates asked: "What happens to the theory and the mathematics if the nature of the vacuum is changing?"

Well, we know what happens to light (from our perspective) when it passes through different areas of space, e.g., when it passes through or close to a galaxy. It gets bent and it is delayed somewhat. This is caused by changes in space and time due to gravity, but the effect is very slight over cosmic distances.

We also know that when space (distance between clusters of galaxies) is expanding, the light from distant galaxies is delayed, because light gets 'dragged away from us', so to speak. This effect is rather large at large distances and is routinely taken into account in cosmic models.

What we observe at large distances, e.g. the way and rate at which light from distant supernovas illuminate the gas clouds around them, correlates well with a constant speed of light through that local space.

However, there probably lurk surprises somewhere in the observable universe, so we cannot be too dogmatic about that. Until such show up, the best we can do is to use the tried and tested assumptions for our calculations, even at the largest scales and earliest epochs.

-J

So there's no truth in the rumour that the Big Bang theory was construed by the CIA to deflect attention from the moon landing, Titanic sinking, and the microwaved water drinking hoaxes, then?

I am not at liberty to say.

... and if you did you'd need to kill us?

What a great thread! In an effort to remove theology from the scepticism: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn25

So What was before big bang? Nothing, not even time. Matters popped up from energy. Reason behind the theory is picture of universe and much more evidence we have. The expansion faster than light gave us the picture. If that is the case no one knows when is next expansion (It may happen from earth or from infinity-1) or does vacuum prevents expansion faster than light? So is it like anything faster than light makes its mass infinite inside vacuum.

Red Shift doesn't mean what you think it means. If almost everything we see is red shifted that means everything is moving away from us. Should everything be moving away from a common center if there really was a big bang(there wasn't). Unless you think that the big bang happened by earth. Quasars are red shifted some of them 300% and that would mean that they are traveling much faster than the speed of light. That may be hard for some of you to accept seeing that you think that the speed of light is constant. There are other ways to handle the red shift. Science isn't packaged up in a neat little bundle like some evolutionists think.

Do we have any constants we can reliably work on. The speed on light is supposed to be constant. But the speed of light, as a velocity might be, but velocity is as ratio of distance over time, thus distance can change as long a time changes in proportion. And if time changes then mass is subject to a change in acceleration - and that produces gravity. Which we know for a fact.

I have it on god authority that there is no wall. What goes out will never come back.

Can you define the front edge. What it looks like?

The problem is, we are thinking in terms of our lifetime and the resulting effects that we can witness.

What we see is it. No solution will present itself for eons.

That's right, I'm not convinced we will ever know. And, what if we don't?

A what?

How did you do that..Hacker !

You can do it too!

Edit the Title block.

Does it really matter?

How many see this series? I like sheldon http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang_theory

Talking about the Red Shift is NOT off topic. We were talking about it for evidence for the big bang. I showed that the Red shift is not evidence for anything. So don't be upset just because you don't like what I say.

That all depends on how one talks about the red shift (and other items).

In addition to what Tornado said, an off topic vote could have been for a bad answer (which it was). When things are receding faster than light, we cannot see them (they are outside of the visible universe).

Bravo !

Your answer may be what it should be, but if you go back through this thread, it does not appear that it is what is happening. There are many off topic (but interesting) comments that are not listed off topic. There are also directly on topic comments that disagree with the way the discussion is going and are listed off topic.

This theory sounds much more credible, and doesn't need magic inflationary periods or singularities.

Interesting.

Thanks for the link.

Certainly not what I expected, given range of other topics the Digital Journal also saw fit make headlines,

including:

Who is to blame for the world's fattest cat?

.

Is this hamster really dead?

.

Iran space center 80% complete!

.

Yellowstone supervolcano may erupt sooner than expected!

.

What does color sound like?

.

Scientists start DNA hunt for Bigfoot, Yeti, and cryptid species.

.

Orvillecopter: story of the cat turned helicopter!

.

As the universe ages, expands, future cosmologists will know less!

...

...

These are priceless....yeah, I wouldn't pay a penny for them. But they do make me chuckle.

Digital Journal was simply reporting a story they found. For the complete story, maybe this is more acceptable to you.