The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
-
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!
Araxen
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 10,459
- 7,852
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,933
- 28,694
I've stated before how much I think the big bang is a huge pile of bullshit. As we observe more and more, it appears to be less and less reliable. Galaxies and super massive black holes have to form stupidly fast in ways that basically poop all over physics. The webb telescope should hopefully put the nail in the big bang theory's coffin, as it will open our eyes to much more of the early universe.
That said, this paper is probably observation hugging pseudo science bullshit. I support their willingness to ignore accepted models, but I doubt it has any real merit what so ever. I might put this on my to-read list, but B journal.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,758
- 20,539
I too, have been sceptical on the Big Bang theory for a long time now. It's main problem is as Terrence McKenna so eloquently put it: "Give me one free miracle, and I can explain everything else for you." I think it's the terror of having to comprehend infinity that drives so many to look for a beginning and an end to the Universe. Probably the best documentary I've ever seen on the steady state universe is The Cosmology Quest:
It goes through the story of how the Big Bang theory came about and theories prevalent previous to it, and how some rogue astronomers and astrophysicists fight against it, and show evidence against it.
It goes through the story of how the Big Bang theory came about and theories prevalent previous to it, and how some rogue astronomers and astrophysicists fight against it, and show evidence against it.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,933
- 28,694
Infinity is terrifying, but at least we know no human will have to suffer that experience.
The steady state theory definitely has problems, but I do vastly prefer the theory in its neutral stance on existence.
Most of the "proof" for the big bang theory was already theorized to exist before it was used to prove the big bang theory. Some of the supposed "proof" actually disproved it and the theory was later changed to fit models. Take the example of the microwave background, one of the most common examples of 'proof' in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicted a microwave background that was far more intense that what we actually found. The theory had to be changed to fit. Whereas, scientists had postulated the microwave background for a very long time in the steady state theory. The questioning essentially went: If there are stars everywhere in the sky, why doesn't space look like the surface of the sun? The natural and obvious answer to that question is that something about space must reduce the energy of light the further it travels. They then tried to calculate what this reduction of power was and then used it to infer the heat of the universe at the microwave spectrum. This prediction -exactly- matched the microwave background.
Because the political engine behind the big bang theory is so strong, ideas were created that could be used to explain this difference (Red shift due to stretching of space time) that can not be proven or dis proven without a vast undertaking of science that humanity is not capable of currently, and the theory was edited ad hoc to incorporate these ideas. In the final, most perverse part, it somehow became accepted generally in scientific history that these were events that proved the big bang theory.
To me the huge difference between good and bad science, is the steady state theory has a ton of ideas about what could be reducing the strength of light over time in space, but none of these theories are accepted into the bigger theory because none of them have been proven to any degree. The big bang theory will tell you why this is happening, and the theory is based around that explination of why even though it has no real scientific merit. This is the scientific process in reverse. Our understanding of nature should never be colored by things we don't know to try and make ourselves seem smarter than we are.
And as a little pre edit: Don't come in here waving around gravitational redshifting as proof of red shift. They are -completely- different beasts.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,758
- 20,539
The thing about politics and science that I most often think about is that whenever there is a debate on Science vs Theism then there are almost always two things that are debated most: evolution, and the big bang. The "stakes" so to say, have become so high in this debate that it has become increasingly difficult for many to admit they are wrong on these issues, if evidence were to emerge that would point to that. To take the other as an example, let's say new evidence were to prove that evolution were to be wrong (and no, I'm not saying proof of God, just some other natural phenomenon). Theists and creationists would have a field day with the whole "science is wrong" stuff. The same would be true of The Big Bang.
Then there is a more personal level to this. There are a huge number of very prominent scientists, especially in the field of Astronomy/astrophysics that have staked their entire career and reputation on the line that the Big Bang is fact. They may not admit it, but would the Big Bang be proved wrong their reputations would be severely tarnished. It's not as if they'd be wrong on some tiny aspect of astrophysics that no-one but a hand full of people cared about, but one of the cornerstones of modern science.
But I still think we'll see a shift in our generation. This reminds me a lot of the Plate Tectonics debate around the middle of the last century. There will come a tipping point when people will have to reconsider the alternative.
Then there is a more personal level to this. There are a huge number of very prominent scientists, especially in the field of Astronomy/astrophysics that have staked their entire career and reputation on the line that the Big Bang is fact. They may not admit it, but would the Big Bang be proved wrong their reputations would be severely tarnished. It's not as if they'd be wrong on some tiny aspect of astrophysics that no-one but a hand full of people cared about, but one of the cornerstones of modern science.
But I still think we'll see a shift in our generation. This reminds me a lot of the Plate Tectonics debate around the middle of the last century. There will come a tipping point when people will have to reconsider the alternative.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,468
- 81,131
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,092
- 13,620
Overview of what? Plate tectonics? The main issue with people not accepting that long ago was limited technology at the time. Once we could actually "see" the bottom of the ocean, most geologists had to begrudgingly accept it since there was a smoking gun that was still firing shots. Prior to then they floated around ideas like continents floating like boats on a semi-plastic layer of the Earth, etc.
Big Bang's main issue is that it isn't still going on, so all we have info that suggests it happened. However, lets just say that there was no Big Bang and the universe has always been around. I think there then becomes huge questions about the laws of entropy and the like as well, right? And what caused our current observable universe to be created? We do have evidence that shit was really, really different 13 billion years ago. If the universe had been around forever, what triggered that change? It seems illogical that everything would have been in some ultra high energy state for untold zillions of years.
Big Bang's main issue is that it isn't still going on, so all we have info that suggests it happened. However, lets just say that there was no Big Bang and the universe has always been around. I think there then becomes huge questions about the laws of entropy and the like as well, right? And what caused our current observable universe to be created? We do have evidence that shit was really, really different 13 billion years ago. If the universe had been around forever, what triggered that change? It seems illogical that everything would have been in some ultra high energy state for untold zillions of years.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,468
- 81,131
Ah wow, I never thought about what theory predated plate tectonics, but continents floating around like boats is hilarious.
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
Isn't this kind of like what happened with Newton's Gravity? We realized it broke down at macro and micro levels, but that didn't mean it was wrong for what it was measuring. We didn't throw it out and look for something new.
After inflation, all of our laws currently work. If it's found they don't work past a singularity, so what? They still work for the universe we live in and experience so far. There's no evidence or proof to show that they don't.
This is a case of journalists making a story. There's no real story here, yet. So far it's a mathematical possibility and nothing more. There's thousands of them.
After inflation, all of our laws currently work. If it's found they don't work past a singularity, so what? They still work for the universe we live in and experience so far. There's no evidence or proof to show that they don't.
This is a case of journalists making a story. There's no real story here, yet. So far it's a mathematical possibility and nothing more. There's thousands of them.
I'm mostly ignorant on this stuff but find it interesting.
How does the universe always having been here jive with things falling to entropy over time? Do they assume that the matter in our current universe perhaps came from another (Colliding bubble universes that occasionally rupture or merge?) or perhaps we have some kind of parasitic relationship with another universe which suddenly brought the shot of matter here? Perhaps time was not always a factor and we sat in some state of suspended animation until the great programmer hit the run simulation button? Matrix?
I find this stuff fascinating if completely crazy at times depending on the topic.
How does the universe always having been here jive with things falling to entropy over time? Do they assume that the matter in our current universe perhaps came from another (Colliding bubble universes that occasionally rupture or merge?) or perhaps we have some kind of parasitic relationship with another universe which suddenly brought the shot of matter here? Perhaps time was not always a factor and we sat in some state of suspended animation until the great programmer hit the run simulation button? Matrix?
I find this stuff fascinating if completely crazy at times depending on the topic.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Well, there would have to be some sort of persistent anti-entropic force. Entropy is basically homogenization of energy. So it would seem that energy would have to be created and energy would have to be destroyed in order for some steady state to exist. I'm no rocket surgeon, but that seems to be a problematic idea as well.
Of course, aren't they starting to think that something like that might actually be possible down below the level of quarks?
Of course, aren't they starting to think that something like that might actually be possible down below the level of quarks?
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,758
- 20,539
There are a bunch of guys who have been advocating a steady state universe model based around Electrical Theory that seems pretty interesting. The basic premise is that modern astronomers/astrophysicists have a lot of training in gravity but are completely clueless in electro-magnetic theory, so they will always be biased towards gravitational models of the universe.
Now, while I do find the Electric theory interesting, I'm not going to say if it has any merit or not. But one thing they do have going for them is that their models are scalable, i.e. their plasma models in the lab can predict things like super-galactic strings and stuff that don't fit traditional gravitaional models without the need for stuff like dark energy/matter. Once we crack riddles of nature then usually they end up being pretty fucking simple (think of things like the theory of gravity or E=MC^2, pretty simple equations to describe complex things like orbital mechanics and nuclear fussion). So it wouldn't surprise me if they do have something going for them.
The main thing that detracts from their group is that they have added into their science a mythology on how plasma fields were seen in ancient times. I think they would be taken more seriously as a group if they dropped that part, regardless if it has merit or not.
If you search Google or YouTube for "The Electric Universe" or "Thunderbolts of the Gods" then you will find their site and their documentaries.
As I say, I find this theory interesting, particularly for its scalability, but I'm not sold on it myself. Take it if you like it, leave it if you don't.
Now, while I do find the Electric theory interesting, I'm not going to say if it has any merit or not. But one thing they do have going for them is that their models are scalable, i.e. their plasma models in the lab can predict things like super-galactic strings and stuff that don't fit traditional gravitaional models without the need for stuff like dark energy/matter. Once we crack riddles of nature then usually they end up being pretty fucking simple (think of things like the theory of gravity or E=MC^2, pretty simple equations to describe complex things like orbital mechanics and nuclear fussion). So it wouldn't surprise me if they do have something going for them.
The main thing that detracts from their group is that they have added into their science a mythology on how plasma fields were seen in ancient times. I think they would be taken more seriously as a group if they dropped that part, regardless if it has merit or not.
If you search Google or YouTube for "The Electric Universe" or "Thunderbolts of the Gods" then you will find their site and their documentaries.
As I say, I find this theory interesting, particularly for its scalability, but I'm not sold on it myself. Take it if you like it, leave it if you don't.
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
Gives me fucking nerd chills.
Another
A brief aside, related to the star simulator mentioned in the last page if you are interested in giving our galaxy a bit of a spin. You should check out Elite: Dangerous. As a game it has a ways to go, but as a simulator to explore our galaxy - I'm not sure you will get a much better opportunity in our lifetime. The experience also supports the Occulus Rift. Basically an astronomy nerd plug for ED.
Another
A brief aside, related to the star simulator mentioned in the last page if you are interested in giving our galaxy a bit of a spin. You should check out Elite: Dangerous. As a game it has a ways to go, but as a simulator to explore our galaxy - I'm not sure you will get a much better opportunity in our lifetime. The experience also supports the Occulus Rift. Basically an astronomy nerd plug for ED.
Araxen
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 10,459
- 7,852
Sterling
El Presidente
- 13,092
- 8,067
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,427
- 7,131
Yeah that didn't sound like it was coming in the next couple years by that article. Would be cool though.