The Astronomy Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
He's saying it's axiomatic. And it is.

It's not a very good theory yet. It's very grand, but it says very little and seems to predict or postdict very little. Maybe i'm wrong in assuming this -- but it seems that you believe without the BBT we would not be looking at high energy states as a matter of science, and that is where you find the worth of the theory. I disagree.

But the flaws in the idea are probably not flaws of reason rather flaws of data and observation. When you have to hedge "dark" versions of matter and energy, and you still have unaccountable phenomena, you haven't really explained very much.

That's not some kind of moral failing. That's :science:
 
F

fucker_sl

shitlord
677
9
of course it's an incomplete theory. And there are good chance that in the future new data will destroy it. But so far? it's the best theory we have, and lot of observations (expanding and accelerating universe, background radiation etc ) give it credit and in science is not a matter of "believe" a theory. As Niel Tyson said the question "do you believe in evolution or BBT?" is the wrong question. The right question is "what is the current theory that better help to explain the universe we see now?"

but that's not where his error was. His error was to simply dont understand what current physic is looking at. and thinking the universe changed his rules in the course of its history....an idea that simply deny itself
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
fucker_sl said:
and thinking the universe changed his rules in the course of its history....an idea that simply deny itself
Click to expand...
That's demonstrably wrong though, at least if you proceed from "a single point" like the big bang does. Something has to change if that's the framework. It's not me saying that, it's guys orders of magnitude more educated in the field than I am with a more discerning mathematical intellect than my own saying that.

You can't get from A (bang) to B (present) without something changing. Not scientifically. Not in a logical fashion. Not based on what we are able to observe. Hence the Dark Matter and Dark energy constructs.

Edit: So either the theory is fundamentally correct or the basic forces are permanent and immutable. One of those things can to be true but they can't both be true. They both can still be false. So no, I don't think it's a self-defeating idea at all to consider contextual mutability of basic forces.
 
Julian The Apostate

Julian The Apostate

Vyemm Raider
2,336
2,439
Iannis_sl said:
That's demonstrably wrong though, at least if you proceed from "a single point" like the big bang does. Something has to change if that's the framework. It's not me saying that, it's guys orders of magnitude more educated in the field than I am with a more discerning mathematical intellect than my own saying that.

You can't get from A (bang) to B (present) without something changing. Not scientifically. Not in a logical fashion. Not based on what we are able to observe. Hence the Dark Matter and Dark energy constructs.

Edit: So either the theory is fundamentally correct or the basic forces are permanent and immutable. One of those things can to be true but they can't both be true. They both can still be false. So no, I don't think it's a self-defeating idea at all to consider contextual mutability of basic forces.
Click to expand...
I could be mistaken, but couldn't it just be some hitherto unknown layer of physics? Newton's laws broke down with objects moving close to the speed of light. Einstein's laws solved the problem of objects moving near the speed of light but breakdown themselves when you come to black holes and the BBT. The physics of the universe didn't change from Newton to Einstein, just our understanding of them and our ability of us to grasp the next layer of physics.
 
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Julian the Apostate_sl said:
Is it a scientific reason for not liking the BBT? If so I think this is the perfect place for the discussion. If it is philosophical reason for not liking the theory it is irrelevant.

Three principles of science from Lawrence Krauss, "Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one's theoretical models."
Click to expand...
The only think i would change is point 2. you are using everyday use of word Theory in a scientific context. Proper word would be Hypothesis. If you are at Theory level it already has proof behind it. Other then that fully agree with the above.
 
F

fucker_sl

shitlord
677
9
Iannis_sl said:
That's demonstrably wrong though, at least if you proceed from "a single point" like the big bang does. Something has to change if that's the framework. It's not me saying that, it's guys orders of magnitude more educated in the field than I am with a more discerning mathematical intellect than my own saying that.

You can't get from A (bang) to B (present) without something changing. Not scientifically. Not in a logical fashion. Not based on what we are able to observe. Hence the Dark Matter and Dark energy constructs.

Edit: So either the theory is fundamentally correct or the basic forces are permanent and immutable. One of those things can to be true but they can't both be true. They both can still be false. So no, I don't think it's a self-defeating idea at all to consider contextual mutability of basic forces.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the subject of the discussion. What have changed is the condition of the universe, the behaviour of the 4 forces of nature we know, or the behavior of matter and energy. But this change happened following whatever rules determine them

gravity for example could be completely different now than in the early universe, but its "changing" happended for a reason....or better it has happened following the laws of nature

Our level of understanding is simply not good enought to understand them right now
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
You've said two wildly different things while presenting them as the same idea.

I think the confusion may only be in language, honestly. I'm pretty sure you mean the gooder, not-retarded thing.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,665
31,522
On the simplest level, we already know that gravity effectively distorts space, especially at higher concentrations of mass. We also know that a lot of standard physical laws break down within the event horizon of a singularity in ways we cannot observe. Is it really that hard to grasp the idea that all of the matter/energy in existance being concentrated in one singularity might distort the nature of the forces of the universe?

I actually have less issue with the concept of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, because there are a lot of possible reasons for them without even delving into really crazy ideas. We simply do not have the capacity to observe some of these things (yet) and much of what we do know is waiting on some sort of solution to the grand unification issues. Once we deepen our understanding of the particle physics behind gravity, you are going to see a lot of major breakthroughs. Assuming we as a species live that long, of course.
 
Pancreas

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,132
3,819
Julian the Apostate_sl said:
Einstein's laws solved the problem of objects moving near the speed of light but breakdown themselves when you come to black holes and the BBT.
Click to expand...
I think the only real issue with black holes and singularities, in terms of relativity, is one of perspective. When trying to describe what is going on inside a singularity using relativity we get infinity; when trying with quantum theory we get infinity raised to infinity. We then say, there is a problem here, this can't be.

But I think the equations are working fine.

If we think about dimensions (not parallel universe type things, but length, width, height) and more specifically lesser dimensions we can see some interesting things that might explain what is going on with the infinity issue.

Think about the dimensional objects from 0 to 3.

0 dimensional is a point. No length width or height, it exists and can occupy a location, but seems to shrink into nothing as you try and approach it.

1 dimensional is a line. It can be thought of as the distance between two points. We typically say it has the single dimension of length.

2 dimensional is a plane. It can be though of as the distance between two separate lines. We typically say is has two dimensions of length and width.

3 Dimensional is a Volume, a cube, a sphere, cylinder, cone ect. It can be thought of as the distance between two separate planes. And has three dimensions, length, width, height.

OK, so, how many squares can you find in a cube? If you have rolled a lot of dice you might say 6. But if you start slicing the cube along any axis that is parallel or perpendicular to any edge of the cube you can create an infinite number of potential squares.

Same goes for finding the number of potential lines in a plane. You can think of a plane as an infinite number of lines that occupy the same "height".

And now for the line; How can you express a line in terms of only points, no lengths? Answer: ?

Going back to the singularity. It is the very definition of a point. So for us to try and express higher dimensional math in that space, it seems reasonable that all we are going to see is ?'s.

We get useful analyses of a dimensional entity when we use lesser dimensional entities to sub-divide it. Like using individual lines to create a grid on a plane; Using planes to slice volumes; or using points to establish a location on a line.

So if we want to unlock what is going on at the level of the singularity we need to find a dimensional component that is less than a point. If we think about the point as the distance between two things, we might be able to express the point in more detailed terms. But I haven't been able to think of anything that would work. Well more specifically I thought off nothing. A point can be thought of as the distance between two non-entities. This basically places the point or singularity at the cusp between existence and non existence.

So if we think about the big bang theory, the universe began with a singularity. And everything that has followed has relied on that initial separation, segregating our universe from the non-universe. Traditional math might still fail to adequately express such a thing, but I believe that the real issue is one of perspective.
 
meStevo

meStevo

I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
<Silver Donator>
6,493
4,773
Totally don't remember Carl Sagan talking like Agent Smith (or the other way around) all the time.

edit: in fact, lol -

 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,165
160,380
Pancreas_sl said:
I think the only real issue with black holes and singularities, in terms of relativity, is one of perspective. When trying to describe what is going on inside a singularity using relativity we get infinity; when trying with quantum theory we get infinity raised to infinity. We then say, there is a problem here, this can't be.

But I think the equations are working fine.

If we think about dimensions (not parallel universe type things, but length, width, height) and more specifically lesser dimensions we can see some interesting things that might explain what is going on with the infinity issue.

Think about the dimensional objects from 0 to 3.

0 dimensional is a point. No length width or height, it exists and can occupy a location, but seems to shrink into nothing as you try and approach it.

1 dimensional is a line. It can be thought of as the distance between two points. We typically say it has the single dimension of length.

2 dimensional is a plane. It can be though of as the distance between two separate lines. We typically say is has two dimensions of length and width.

3 Dimensional is a Volume, a cube, a sphere, cylinder, cone ect. It can be thought of as the distance between two separate planes. And has three dimensions, length, width, height.

OK, so, how many squares can you find in a cube? If you have rolled a lot of dice you might say 6. But if you start slicing the cube along any axis that is parallel or perpendicular to any edge of the cube you can create an infinite number of potential squares.

Same goes for finding the number of potential lines in a plane. You can think of a plane as an infinite number of lines that occupy the same "height".

And now for the line; How can you express a line in terms of only points, no lengths? Answer: ?

Going back to the singularity. It is the very definition of a point. So for us to try and express higher dimensional math in that space, it seems reasonable that all we are going to see is ?'s.

We get useful analyses of a dimensional entity when we use lesser dimensional entities to sub-divide it. Like using individual lines to create a grid on a plane; Using planes to slice volumes; or using points to establish a location on a line.

So if we want to unlock what is going on at the level of the singularity we need to find a dimensional component that is less than a point. If we think about the point as the distance between two things, we might be able to express the point in more detailed terms. But I haven't been able to think of anything that would work. Well more specifically I thought off nothing. A point can be thought of as the distance between two non-entities. This basically places the point or singularity at the cusp between existence and non existence.

So if we think about the big bang theory, the universe began with a singularity. And everything that has followed has relied on that initial separation, segregating our universe from the non-universe. Traditional math might still fail to adequately express such a thing, but I believe that the real issue is one of perspective.
Click to expand...

I think this is an awesome post. I never thought about it this way.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
I like listening to this guy, he has a theory for dealing with the infinities of black holes saying all the other dimensions are made from the 1st dimension, he uses sacred geometry and fractals to deal with infinities and he makes a lot of sense.

He also claims and had some papers accepted that have a complete unified field theory.

The most interesting historical part to me was he was saying Einsteins field equations weren't solved by Einstein it was some German soldier on the eastern front that read about them, solved 1/2 the equations and died weeks later. we only use 1/2 the field equations apparently.

he also has a interesting idea that atoms can be split into an infinity number of smaller and smaller particles, that infinity goes both ways.
which is mathematically true.

he reconciles finite and infinity by showing you can have infinity within a defined set of boundary conditions using the Fibonacci sequence.

 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
He responded to that guy, that bob a thon guy wasn't entirely persuasive. He had to snipe at the edges of his theories, or try to apply "standard paradigms" when this guy has just a completely different viewpoint of reality. Sniping at Some 30 second part of a 4 hour lecture and when this guy does a 4 hour talk he uses analogies, I'm sure he's not the first guy to use a penis analogy.

he's an oddball self taught guy, but his math works at least superficially and his theories are interesting.


http://theresonanceproject.org/letter-to-dr-bob-a-thon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.