Astronomy / The Universe

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

According to the Bible, Jesus ascended into Heaven about 2,000 years ago.  If he has been ascending at the speed of light, he'll still be in our galaxy.

[Unknown user]

16 hours ago, Cade said:

Thousands of the stars we see in the night sky probably ceased to exist several million years ago but the light from those events won't reach Earth for another few million years.

So when you look up at the night sky you're actually looking back in time.

 

Not only are the galaxies all moving away from each other through space, but space itself is also stretching.

And rather than slowing down, the rate of expansion seems to be increasing.

What energy is driving that is a mystery.

 

With an explosion, at the start everything is accelerating away from the central point until external forces slow the movement down. I don't know how that works in the vacuum of space but it makes sense to me that thon big bang thing is the driver.

 

[JFK-1]

 

[Sidelight]

On 15/08/2021 at 09:42, Smithee said:

 

With an explosion, at the start everything is accelerating away from the central point until external forces slow the movement down. I don't know how that works in the vacuum of space but it makes sense to me that thon big bang thing is the driver.

 

What you have stated is serious misconception of the BB Model.

The name does imply an explosion however this is erroneous.

The bang part of the name comes from the model understanding which recognises the sudden appearance of time, space, energy and matter. It doesn’t legislate for an explosion.

If you like the BB happened everywhere at the point of creation. So as the universe expands, stuff doesn’t fill space that was before empty. Rather in the BB model, the universe began filled with energy and matter its just that the matter and energy become less dense as the universe expands.

I should also say that the ever-evolving BB Model is filled with many assertions and assumptions and is silent on the question of origin.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Sidelight

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

What you have stated is serious misconception of the BB Model.

The name does imply an explosion however this is erroneous.

The bang part of the name comes from the model understanding which recognises the sudden appearance of time, space, energy and matter. It doesn’t legislate for an explosion.

If you like the BB happened everywhere at the point of creation. So as the universe expands, stuff doesn’t fill space that was before empty. Rather in the BB model, the universe began filled with energy and matter its just that the matter and energy become less dense as the universe expands.

I should also say that the ever-evolving BB Model is filled with many assertions and assumptions and is silent on the question of origin.

 

 

**** knows then

[Sidelight]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

**** knows then

The BB name is a misnomer. It naturally makes one think of a BB 'Explosion'.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Sidelight

[John Gentleman]

37 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

What you have stated is serious misconception of the BB Model.

The name does imply an explosion however this is erroneous.

The bang part of the name comes from the model understanding which recognises the sudden appearance of time, space, energy and matter. It doesn’t legislate for an explosion.

If you like the BB happened everywhere at the point of creation. So as the universe expands, stuff doesn’t fill space that was before empty. Rather in the BB model, the universe began filled with energy and matter its just that the matter and energy become less dense as the universe expands.

I should also say that the ever-evolving BB Model is filled with many assertions and assumptions and is silent on the question of origin.

 

Not the least being why we're here at all debating it. At the start of the universe, all matter and anti-matter particles should have annihalated each other.

Yet here we are......

[Sidelight]

1 hour ago, John Gentleman said:

Not the least being why we're here at all debating it. At the start of the universe, all matter and anti-matter particles should have annihalated each other.

Yet here we are......

The physical laws indicate that equal amounts of M and AM would have been created in the proposed bb model.

However, I think now that even the if you like partitioned matter-antimatter  symmetric universe notion has been canned.

[Ked]

2 hours ago, Sidelight said:

What you have stated is serious misconception of the BB Model.

The name does imply an explosion however this is erroneous.

The bang part of the name comes from the model understanding which recognises the sudden appearance of time, space, energy and matter. It doesn’t legislate for an explosion.

If you like the BB happened everywhere at the point of creation. So as the universe expands, stuff doesn’t fill space that was before empty. Rather in the BB model, the universe began filled with energy and matter its just that the matter and energy become less dense as the universe expands.

I should also say that the ever-evolving BB Model is filled with many assertions and assumptions and is silent on the question of origin.

 

It's almost God like if you know what I mean.

In so much as the sudden appearance of it.

Again a total mindblower .

 

[Sidelight]

1 hour ago, Ked said:

It's almost God like if you know what I mean.

In so much as the sudden appearance of it.

Again a total mindblower .

 

Absolutely.

And as most are aware regards the seeming contradiction that exists between the 1^st and 2^nd law of thermodynamics with respect to the universe beginnings.

1^st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) identifies that the universe must be eternal.

2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says no way, the universe can’t be eternal.

Scientists who are committed to naturalism try to explain this contradiction by invoking the power of quantum fluctuations. However, this is really no more than a notion.

Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold irrespective of the mechanics of physics.

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Sidelight said:

Absolutely.

And as most are aware regards the seeming contradiction that exists between the 1^st and 2^nd law of thermodynamics with respect to the universe beginnings.

1^st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) identifies that the universe must be eternal.

2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says no way, the universe can’t be eternal.

Scientists who are committed to naturalism try to explain this contradiction by invoking the power of quantum fluctuations. However, this is really no more than a notion.

Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold irrespective of the mechanics of physics.

I've held a view that while not subscribing to any religion that the way we just think and contemplate the science alone is in itself definitely spiritual.

I'm going to take time out to digest your post.

🙂 

 

[Ked]

4 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

Absolutely.

And as most are aware regards the seeming contradiction that exists between the 1^st and 2^nd law of thermodynamics with respect to the universe beginnings.

1^st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) identifies that the universe must be eternal.

2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says no way, the universe can’t be eternal.

Scientists who are committed to naturalism try to explain this contradiction by invoking the power of quantum fluctuations. However, this is really no more than a notion.

Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold irrespective of the mechanics of physics.

Just one thing .

I had to laugh at the "and as most are aware"

 

[Sidelight]

6 minutes ago, Ked said:

Just one thing .

I had to laugh at the "and as most are aware"

 

Many posters on this thread will understand the contradiction.

It’s probably been discussed many times here.

1^st law (energy cannot be created or destroyed) CoE.

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Ked said:

It's almost God like if you know what I mean.

In so much as the sudden appearance of it.

Again a total mindblower .

 

 

This genuinely causes me mental stress trying to understand the something from nothing concept. No matter how many attempts at an explanation and I don't think I've seen a proper one, more semantic word play. Seems like a massive problem with the BB theory but then I'm not physicist so happy for someone to set me right. 

[Ked]

36 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

This genuinely causes me mental stress trying to understand the something from nothing concept. No matter how many attempts at an explanation and I don't think I've seen a proper one, more semantic word play. Seems like a massive problem with the BB theory but then I'm not physicist so happy for someone to set me right. 

It certainly gets the mind spinning.

 

[Maple Leaf]

52 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

This genuinely causes me mental stress trying to understand the something from nothing concept. No matter how many attempts at an explanation and I don't think I've seen a proper one, more semantic word play. Seems like a massive problem with the BB theory but then I'm not physicist so happy for someone to set me right. 

 

Homo sapiens has been around for about 2 million years, but modern astronomy dates back less than 600 years to Copernicus.  The science of astronomy, therefore is in its infancy.  As with anything in its infancy, we are just beginning to learn.  It's a safe bet that we have much more to discover than has already been discovered.

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Sidelight said:

Absolutely.

And as most are aware regards the seeming contradiction that exists between the 1^st and 2^nd law of thermodynamics with respect to the universe beginnings.

1^st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) identifies that the universe must be eternal.

2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says no way, the universe can’t be eternal.

Scientists who are committed to naturalism try to explain this contradiction by invoking the power of quantum fluctuations. However, this is really no more than a notion.

Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold irrespective of the mechanics of physics.

 

You might be aware of a seeming contradiction between the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  I've yet to meet a physics teacher or lecturer who is aware of such a contradiction.  The first law deals with the total amount of energy/matter in a system where matter or energy can't be added (the universe is by definition such a system).  The second law deals with the effectiveness of conversion of that energy/matter and how that affects the concentration of energy.  Energy travels from high-energy to low-energy positions.  Right now, the universe has lots of high-energy spots (and lots of high-matter spots as well), along with shitloads and shitloads of low-energy places and empty space - so lots of room for heat, light and EM radiation to travel from one place to another.  But eventually, following the second law of thermodynamics, all of the energy in the universe will spread out so that every point in the universe is at the same energy level.  That doesn't mean that the total energy level in the system changes or that the universe stops existing.  It just makes it very dull and boring for "eternity" (or whatever word we have to describe an incalculably long period of time).

 

Many creationists like to take comfort in creating and maintaining the illusion of a contradiction between the laws of thermodynamics - and if they describe their passionately-held view in a plausible way, others will believe them.  Your own description above is almost word for word the same as a popular creationist  source called "answers in Genesis" (which you may be quoting either directly or indirectly).  Being a Christian creationist source, it is already biased to the view that "Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold".  God alone knows if it's legitimate , but it isn't backed by any evidence.

 

Creationists can hold any position they like, and you are free to join them if you wish, but unless they have evidence for their position it is as valid (or legitimate) as having an opinion on whether or not unicorns are hollow, or whether Catholics, Protestants or Muslims have the best imaginary friend with superpowers.

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

56 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Homo sapiens has been around for about 2 million years, but modern astronomy dates back less than 600 years to Copernicus.  The science of astronomy, therefore is in its infancy.  As with anything in its infancy, we are just beginning to learn.  It's a safe bet that we have much more to discover than has already been discovered.

 

Oh aye absolutely. But this just frustrates me more because of all the exciting discoveries humans make after I'm dead. I just want to know everything now! 

[spud]

39 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Homo sapiens has been around for about 2 million years, but modern astronomy dates back less than 600 years to Copernicus.  The science of astronomy, therefore is in its infancy.  As with anything in its infancy, we are just beginning to learn.  It's a safe bet that we have much more to discover than has already been discovered.

Although I endorse your general conclusions, I'd expand the 600 years out to double that. Using a star map, Stellarium for instance, shows the huge influence of ancient Arabic astronomers. Almost all the stars, even faint, hardly visible stars, in the night sky have and retain Arabic names, Ras Alhague, Sadalmelik, Nasak Shamiya, Markeb etc. Maybe nit-picking!

[Maple Leaf]

6 minutes ago, spud said:

Although I endorse your general conclusions, I'd expand the 600 years out to double that. Using a star map, Stellarium for instance, shows the huge influence of ancient Arabic astronomers. Almost all the stars, even faint, hardly visible stars, in the night sky have and retain Arabic names, Ras Alhague, Sadalmelik, Nasak Shamiya, Markeb etc. Maybe nit-picking!

 

Not the least bit nit-picking.  In addition to the Arabs, the Greeks were no slouches either.

 

I used the term 'modern' loosely, as it was Copernicus who first proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. 

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You might be aware of a seeming contradiction between the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  I've yet to meet a physics teacher or lecturer who is aware of such a contradiction.  The first law deals with the total amount of energy/matter in a system where matter or energy can't be added (the universe is by definition such a system).  The second law deals with the effectiveness of conversion of that energy/matter and how that affects the concentration of energy.  Energy travels from high-energy to low-energy positions.  Right now, the universe has lots of high-energy spots (and lots of high-matter spots as well), along with shitloads and shitloads of low-energy places and empty space - so lots of room for heat, light and EM radiation to travel from one place to another.  But eventually, following the second law of thermodynamics, all of the energy in the universe will spread out so that every point in the universe is at the same energy level.  That doesn't mean that the total energy level in the system changes or that the universe stops existing.  It just makes it very dull and boring for "eternity" (or whatever word we have to describe an incalculably long period of time).

 

Many creationists like to take comfort in creating and maintaining the illusion of a contradiction between the laws of thermodynamics - and if they describe their passionately-held view in a plausible way, others will believe them.  Your own description above is almost word for word the same as a popular creationist  source called "answers in Genesis" (which you may be quoting either directly or indirectly).  Being a Christian creationist source, it is already biased to the view that "Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold".  God alone knows if it's legitimate , but it isn't backed by any evidence.

 

Creationists can hold any position they like, and you are free to join them if you wish, but unless they have evidence for their position it is as valid (or legitimate) as having an opinion on whether or not unicorns are hollow, or whether Catholics, Protestants or Muslims have the best imaginary friend with superpowers.

 

 

How many physics teachers do you know, 5, 10, 2500?

Have your findings been published and peer reviewed?

Concerning the paragraph on thermodynamics – a chapter from ‘Physics is Fun’?

Then the played-out cliques followed by unicorns and imaginary friends.

They seem to live rent free inside your head. I certainly didn’t mention them.

Light hearted humour of course but you need to move on!

All options are on the table.

[Ulysses]

13 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

All options are on the table.

 

Get evidence or play with the unicorns inside your head.

[Ked]

5 hours ago, Sidelight said:

Many posters on this thread will understand the contradiction.

It’s probably been discussed many times here.

1^st law (energy cannot be created or destroyed) CoE.

Ok after the posts just read what does CoE stand for?

 

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You might be aware of a seeming contradiction between the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  I've yet to meet a physics teacher or lecturer who is aware of such a contradiction.  The first law deals with the total amount of energy/matter in a system where matter or energy can't be added (the universe is by definition such a system).  The second law deals with the effectiveness of conversion of that energy/matter and how that affects the concentration of energy.  Energy travels from high-energy to low-energy positions.  Right now, the universe has lots of high-energy spots (and lots of high-matter spots as well), along with shitloads and shitloads of low-energy places and empty space - so lots of room for heat, light and EM radiation to travel from one place to another.  But eventually, following the second law of thermodynamics, all of the energy in the universe will spread out so that every point in the universe is at the same energy level.  That doesn't mean that the total energy level in the system changes or that the universe stops existing.  It just makes it very dull and boring for "eternity" (or whatever word we have to describe an incalculably long period of time).

 

Many creationists like to take comfort in creating and maintaining the illusion of a contradiction between the laws of thermodynamics - and if they describe their passionately-held view in a plausible way, others will believe them.  Your own description above is almost word for word the same as a popular creationist  source called "answers in Genesis" (which you may be quoting either directly or indirectly).  Being a Christian creationist source, it is already biased to the view that "Having a metaphysical or spiritual view rather than a physical one concerning the existence of the universe is a legitimate position to hold".  God alone knows if it's legitimate , but it isn't backed by any evidence.

 

Creationists can hold any position they like, and you are free to join them if you wish, but unless they have evidence for their position it is as valid (or legitimate) as having an opinion on whether or not unicorns are hollow, or whether Catholics, Protestants or Muslims have the best imaginary friend with superpowers.

 

 

Going back to cades post .

What drives that energy   does leave doubt about what follows in  scientific evidence.

Surely a source is needed?

15 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Get evidence or play with the unicorns inside your head.

I'm not advocating any view.

But doesnt it mean that's unicorn as you describe.

 

 

 

 

[spud]

29 minutes ago, Sidelight said:

How many physics teachers do you know, 5, 10, 2500?

Have your findings been published and peer reviewed?

Concerning the paragraph on thermodynamics – a chapter from ‘Physics is Fun’?

Then the played-out cliques followed by unicorns and imaginary friends.

They seem to live rent free inside your head. I certainly didn’t mention them.

Light hearted humour of course but you need to move on!

All options are on the table.

If it is from "Physics is fun" it's still physics.

And if is from a chapter, that kind of negates your second question.

Just saying.

[spud]

16 minutes ago, spud said:

If it is from "Physics is fun" it's still physics.

And if is from a chapter, that kind of negates your second question.

Just saying.

BTW, if it is from a book and therefore has been published and peer reviewed, your first question about how many physics teachers someone knows is kind of meaningless as well.

Again just saying.

[Ulysses]

21 minutes ago, Ked said:

What drives that energy   does leave doubt about what follows in  scientific evidence.

Surely a source is needed?

 

Why is a source needed?  And if it is needed, why speculate as to what it might be instead of applying the maths and physics we know to try to work out what it is?  Maybe the source was there, obeying the laws of thermodynamics all along?  When last I looked (which was admittedly a couple of years ago), we had a pretty good picture of the Big Bang back to a tiny percentage of a second after it started.  The maths and physics we know should eventually close that gap.  Or it may not, but given our track record in working stuff out so far it's probably only a matter of time.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Ked said:

 

But doesnt it mean that's unicorn as you describe.

 

 

It's a tried and trusted technique of creationists to say that because "science" doesn't have the answer to something, the answer must be supernatural.  Sometimes they get cheekier and claim that because they don't understand something, it means that "science" doesn't know it either.

 

If we don't have the information to explain a phenomenon, it isn't enough to speculate and randomly make up stuff to fill the gaps in our knowledge.  Instead, we set up a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and then we test.  If the tests favour our hypothesis, we can start to develop our hypothesis into an explanation - but only as long as others can repeat the tests and get the same results. If they can't, our hypothesis doesn't hold.  The more such positive tests there are, the firmer our explanation becomes.  On the other hand, if tests are carried out that show that our explanation isn't valid, we either scrap the explanation or change it.

 

No-one has ever devised a testable hypothesis for the establishment of our universe by a creature with supernatural powers that has been successfully tested and peer reviewed.  No-one.  If and when they do, they can begin to use their hypothesis to explain the Big Bang.  But until then, we're relying on the mathematicians and the physicists to keep plugging away at narrowing the information gap.

[Ked]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why is a source needed?  And if it is needed, why speculate as to what it might be instead of applying the maths and physics we know to try to work out what it is?  Maybe the source was there, obeying the laws of thermodynamics all along?  When last I looked (which was admittedly a couple of years ago), we had a pretty good picture of the Big Bang back to a tiny percentage of a second after it started.  The maths and physics we know should eventually close that gap.  Or it may not, but given our track record in working stuff out so far it's probably only a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

It's a tried and trusted technique of creationists to say that because "science" doesn't have the answer to something, the answer must be supernatural.  Sometimes they get cheekier and claim that because they don't understand something, it means that "science" doesn't know it either.

 

If we don't have the information to explain a phenomenon, it isn't enough to speculate and randomly make up stuff to fill the gaps in our knowledge.  Instead, we set up a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and then we test.  If the tests favour our hypothesis, we can start to develop our hypothesis into an explanation - but only as long as others can repeat the tests and get the same results. If they can't, our hypothesis doesn't hold.  The more such positive tests there are, the firmer our explanation becomes.  On the other hand, if tests are carried out that show that our explanation isn't valid, we either scrap the explanation or change it.

 

No-one has ever devised a testable hypothesis for the establishment of our universe by a creature with supernatural powers that has been successfully tested and peer reviewed.  No-one.  If and when they do, they can begin to use their hypothesis to explain the Big Bang.  But until then, we're relying on the mathematicians and the physicists to keep plugging away at narrowing the information gap.

Thanks.

So what hooked me from sides post were the references to the 2 laws .

I think I'm right in saying after you and spuds answers theres no scientific merit in that.

 

Bear with me if I'm coming across a bit dippet.The whole subject makes me wish I'd stuck in at school.

Although I like the unicorn aspect of it too truth be told.

[Unknown user]

I don't care for things I'll never know the answer to so I have no real interest in the big bang and what have you. But the whole religious twisting thing is fascinating!

 

It comes down to the fact that the word entropy doesn't mean what they think (or pretend?) it means, simple as that.

[JFK-1]

13 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

This genuinely causes me mental stress trying to understand the something from nothing concept. No matter how many attempts at an explanation and I don't think I've seen a proper one, more semantic word play. Seems like a massive problem with the BB theory but then I'm not physicist so happy for someone to set me right. 

 

Lawrence Krauss has a hypothesis regarding "something from nothing". First what is nothing? Do you think there is such a thing as absolutely nothing?

We imagine deep space such as the space between the galaxies to be pretty much completely empty and a lot of it pretty much is as such. But, Kraus says, if you could find a spot in space that was completely devoid of any matter at all, not so much as a quark in there, and somehow weigh say a square yard of that space, it would weigh something.

He is saying that energy always has and always will exist. And one thing Einstein taught us is that matter and energy are the same thing in a different form. Hence annihilating a couple of grammes of plutonium releases a gigantic amount of energy.

Incidentally if you could do that to any material at all you would be minted energy wise. A glass of water has enough energy to power a city like London for a month.
 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Lawrence Krauss has a hypothesis regarding "something from nothing". First what is nothing? Do you think there is such a thing as absolutely nothing?

We imagine deep space such as the space between the galaxies to be pretty much completely empty and a lot of it pretty much is as such. But, Kraus says, if you could find a spot in space that was completely devoid of any matter at all, not so much as a quark in there, and somehow weigh say a square yard of that space, it would weigh something.

He is saying that energy always has and always will exist. And one thing Einstein taught us is that matter and energy are the same thing in a different form. Hence annihilating a couple of grammes of plutonium releases a gigantic amount of energy.

Incidentally if you could do that to any material at all you would be minted energy wise. A glass of water has enough energy to power a city like London for a month.
 

 

 

See this is what I think feels like a cop out, how can something just always exist? 

 

Now granted, that's quite possibly down to the fact my human brain just can't fathom that concept but it feels too much like an easy out. Unless there is the maths to show how this is true or could be? 

 

I think I watched that video if it was posted here before and it was great. Might need to rewatch.

[maroonlegions]

23 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

**** knows then

Yip, you dont.

 

Still  it  does not stop you posting arrogant claims that any ET civilisations out there DONT have ADVANCE teck to reach other solar systems like ours.

 

Even modern day scientific disciplines like "quantum mechanics" have made breakthroughs in regards to other dimensions that are NOT bound by the TIME concept.

 

Interplanetary space travel using worm holes are not being ruled out yet, and i bet my last pound you were arrogant of that to.   

 

You are all over the place.

 

If indeed life came from outer space then even you have alien in you.

 

You really need to do your homework before you post ..

 

 

Aye feck knows.. 

 

 

Star Trek’s Warp Drive Leads to New Physics

Researchers are taking a closer look at this science-fiction staple—and bringing the idea a little closer to reality

• By Robert Gast, Spektrum on July 13, 2021

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

 

 

 

Warp one, engage! Credit: Getty Images

For Erik Lentz, it all started with Star Trek. Every few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Captain Jean-Luc Picard would raise his hand and order, “Warp one, engage!” Then stars became dashes, and light-years flashed by at impossible speed. And Lentz, still in elementary school, wondered whether warp drive might also work in real life.

 

“At some point, I realized that the technology didn’t exist,” Lentz says. He studied physics at the University of Washington, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on dark matter and generally became far too busy to be concerned with science fiction. But then, at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Lentz found himself alone in Göttingen, Germany, where he was doing postdoctoral work. He suddenly had plenty of free time on his hands—and childhood fancies in his head.

 

NASA artist’s 1998 rendition of warp drive travel. The ring around the spacecraft generates a negative-energy field. From today’s perspective, the negative-energy field would no longer be necessary. Credit: NASA; Digital art by Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp)

Edited August 21, 2021 by maroonlegions

[Unknown user]

13 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Yip, you dont.

 

Still  it  does not stop you posting arrogant claims that any ET civilisations out there DONT have ADVANCE teck to reach other solar systems like ours.

 

Even modern day scientific disciplines like "quantum mechanics" have made breakthroughs in regards to other dimensions that are NOT bound by the TIME concept.

 

Interplanetary space travel using worm holes are not being ruled out yet, and i bet my last pound you were arrogant of that to.   

 

You are all over the place.

 

If indeed life came from outer space then even you have alien in you.

 

You really need to do your homework before you post ..

 

 

Aye feck knows.. 

 

 

Star Trek’s Warp Drive Leads to New Physics

Researchers are taking a closer look at this science-fiction staple—and bringing the idea a little closer to reality

• By Robert Gast, Spektrum on July 13, 2021

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

 

 

 

Warp one, engage! Credit: Getty Images

For Erik Lentz, it all started with Star Trek. Every few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Captain Jean-Luc Picard would raise his hand and order, “Warp one, engage!” Then stars became dashes, and light-years flashed by at impossible speed. And Lentz, still in elementary school, wondered whether warp drive might also work in real life.

 

“At some point, I realized that the technology didn’t exist,” Lentz says. He studied physics at the University of Washington, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on dark matter and generally became far too busy to be concerned with science fiction. But then, at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Lentz found himself alone in Göttingen, Germany, where he was doing postdoctoral work. He suddenly had plenty of free time on his hands—and childhood fancies in his head.

 

NASA artist’s 1998 rendition of warp drive travel. The ring around the spacecraft generates a negative-energy field. From today’s perspective, the negative-energy field would no longer be necessary. Credit: NASA; Digital art by Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp)

 

Ken, what a spazz, not understanding the big bang

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Ked said:

Thanks.

So what hooked me from sides post were the references to the 2 laws .

I think I'm right in saying after you and spuds answers theres no scientific merit in that.

 

Bear with me if I'm coming across a bit dippet.The whole subject makes me wish I'd stuck in at school.

Although I like the unicorn aspect of it too truth be told.

 

People who believe that the universe was made by a deity know that their beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence, and also for the most part contradictory to scientific information.  However, they also know that a lot of people have heard of many scientific terms without having a sense of what they mean - so if they assemble some "technobabble", wrap it around their story, and make it sound "sciency" they can convince some people that their beliefs have some relevance to the natural world.

 

Meanwhile in the real universe, there are many wonderful things being discovered and even more to be discovered.  Some people prefer to indulge in creation myths when they could spend time admiring and learning about what actually exists.  They must get some value out of that, but it seems like such a limited and pointless view of the universe.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Meanwhile in the real universe, there are many wonderful things being discovered and even more to be discovered.  Some people prefer to indulge in creation myths when they could spend time admiring and learning about what actually exists.  They must get some value out of that, but it seems like such a limited and pointless view of the universe.

 

Some people also prefer to indulge in the myth that science fiction is somehow really a form of science - but just like the religious believers, they have no testable hypothesis, no tests, no peer reviews and no validation either.

 

Work with the universe as it is, not as you'd like to pretend it is.

[Ked]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

People who believe that the universe was made by a deity know that their beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence, and also for the most part contradictory to scientific information.  However, they also know that a lot of people have heard of many scientific terms without having a sense of what they mean - so if they assemble some "technobabble", wrap it around their story, and make it sound "sciency" they can convince some people that their beliefs have some relevance to the natural world.

 

Meanwhile in the real universe, there are many wonderful things being discovered and even more to be discovered.  Some people prefer to indulge in creation myths when they could spend time admiring and learning about what actually exists.  They must get some value out of that, but it seems like such a limited and pointless view of the universe.

If I'm honest I did take in the first law v 2nd law part of that post.

There is some amount of it to admire that's for sure and the sheer scale of it.

 

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

 

There is some amount of it to admire that's for sure and the sheer scale of it.

 

 

There surely is.  Let's keep this local.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

There surely is.  Let's keep this local.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today with all the new data being received, there are some like me who have a sneaky feeling that our solar system and others , including the universe and others are no accident. Its too conformed. I mean, even the big band , the justification that life, is just a combination of atoms ect..  is  recently   being questioned.  

 

For my part i am no religious person, but away from all the main stream religions, there is a indication that there is in some scientific way a source from all life.     

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Today with all the new data being received, there are some like me who have a sneaky feeling that our solar system and others , including the universe and others are no accident. Its too conformed. I mean, even the big band , the justification that life, is just a combination of atoms ect..  is  recently   being questioned.  

 

For my part i am no religious person, but away from all the main stream religions, there is a indication that there is in some scientific way a source from all life.     

 

Your feeling about this doesn't really matter without a testable hypothesis.  If you don't have that, then the words "in some scientific way" make no sense.

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Today with all the new data being received, there are some like me who have a sneaky feeling that our solar system and others , including the universe and others are no accident. Its too conformed. I mean, even the big band , the justification that life, is just a combination of atoms ect..  is  recently   being questioned.  

 

For my part i am no religious person, but away from all the main stream religions, there is a indication that there is in some scientific way a source from all life.     

 

I also have a sneaky feeling

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Your feeling about this doesn't really matter without a testable hypothesis.  If you don't have that, then the words "in some scientific way" make no sense.

Well lets look deeper at just WHO are questioning.

 

Lets look at the non testable  hypothesis as you speak off.  

 

A phrase used by the title character in the play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Hamlet suggests that human knowledge is limited: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [science].

 

And were did i say it does not matter without a "testable hypothesis"..??

 

I have provided a NASA link to the possibility of WARP Drive teck being more acceptable. But that"s ignored, WHY??

 

And yes my words dont really matter, but when they are linked to those who Do matter then its a bit "pedantic"  to imply that its taken out of context regarding POSSIBILITIES that even some in scientific disciplines like "quantum mechanics" are suggesting. 

 

Not every thing is black and white .

 

  Dont really know what your argument is in regards to the link i posted??

 

Lets look at religion, is there ANY testable hypothesis in any religions, that someone walked on water, turned blood or water into wine, rose from the dead, cured a bind man ect..  

 

Blind faith is the Achilles heal to science, but nothing is challenged there, but wee green men having advanced teck to over come vast  distances , of having the teck like  using "warp drive "teck is far fetched ??

 

Science today does not know every thing, thats the beauty of this age, thats the evolution we are on in regards of slowly through the generations of discovering new data that throws up new challenges to present day physics, its an every evolving beast. 

 

Each to their own faith ,but for my part at least  i believe we aint seen  nothing yet.

The new age is still to manifest  and it will and is through "quantum mechanics and "string theory"..

 

Those that say science knows ALL in its present day understandings of this universe are the ones to avoid.

 

There are "peer reviewed" hypothesis regarding the nature of just what this part of the universe is.

 

"Perhaps a Star Trek experience within our lifetime is not such a remote possibility." These are the words of Dr. Harold "Sonny" White, the Advanced Propulsion Theme Lead for the NASA Engineering Directorate. Dr. White and his colleagues don't just believe a real life warp drive is theoretically possible; they've already started the work to create one.

 

The answer lies precisely in those laws of physics. Dr. White and other physicists have found loopholes in some mathematical equations—loopholes that indicate that warping the space-time fabric is indeed possible.

 

Working at NASA Eagleworks—a skunkworks operation deep at NASA's Johnson Space Center—Dr. White's team is trying to find proof of those loopholes. They have "initiated an interferometer test bed that will try to generate and detect a microscopic instance of a little

warp bubble" using an instrument called the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer.

 

And then there is this discovery;

 

Yes all that glitters is not gold.

 

 

New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is “just right” for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos

.

If correct, this result stands against Einstein’s equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. “This finding was a real surprise to everyone,” says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

 

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a “preferred direction”, or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

 

Sections of sky

At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyse the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very slightly smaller when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

 

Now Webb’s colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analysed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

 

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/#ixzz74DAXEohO

      

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

52 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I also have a sneaky feeling

Aye , you are just sneaky mate, sussed you out aeons ago..

 

[EH11]

55 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Your feeling about this doesn't really matter without a testable hypothesis.  If you don't have that, then the words "in some scientific way" make no sense.

 

This is where science falls on it's own sword though, our science can explain so little that using testable hypothesis renders science senseless.  So much of science is guesswork and built of hypothesis that is increasingly questionable. See quantum dynamics or epigenetics in the field of physics and biology as examples.  

 

[maroonlegions]

3 minutes ago, EH11 said:

 

This is where science falls on it's own sword though, our science can explain so little that using testable hypothesis renders science senseless.  So much of science is guesswork and built of hypothesis that is increasingly questionable. See quantum dynamics or epigenetics in the field of physics and biology as examples.  

 

Correct mate,

 

The fields of quantum mechanics  is were we as a species will on day open up new horizons  and discoveries that will allow us to travel the cosmos.

 

Nothing is certain in our present day understandings of the universe. 

 

Those of a religious mind set hate science for this very reason, new discoverers are, and will  show that man made religions are nothing more than a control vessel , a vessel that uses FEAR of a fiery hell to those who dare question  them.  

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Aye , you are just sneaky mate, sussed you out aeons ago..

 

 

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Correct mate,

 

The fields of quantum mechanics  is were we as a species will on day open up new horizons  and discoveries that will allow us to travel the cosmos.

 

Nothing is certain in our present day understandings of the universe. 

 

Those of a religious mind set hate science for this very reason, new discoverers are, and will  show that man made religions are nothing more than a control vessel , a vessel that uses FEAR of a fiery hell to those who dare question  them.  

What if they have a sneaky feeling?

[AlphonseCapone]

32 minutes ago, EH11 said:

 

This is where science falls on it's own sword though, our science can explain so little that using testable hypothesis renders science senseless.  So much of science is guesswork and built of hypothesis that is increasingly questionable. See quantum dynamics or epigenetics in the field of physics and biology as examples.  

 

 

Science can explain so little? That's an astonishing statement. 

[EH11]

10 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Science can explain so little? That's an astonishing statement. 

I know.

[Cade]

When religious people don't understand something, they write it off as being God.

When archaeologists don't understand something, they write it off as being "ritual".

When scientists don't understand something, they keep working at it.

 

Modern science usually takes one question and ends up asking lots more questions, all of which lead to even more questions.

This is especially true of modern Physics.

The working theories we have of how things work only really apply to the universe as we know it in easily observable scales.

At the very small scale and the very large scale, all of those theories stop applying.

New entire branches of science are springing up all over the place as we uncover more and more questions.

Physics eventually leads to chemistry as the stars and gravity form base atoms into elements then molecules and chemistry eventually bleeds into becoming biology when certain conditions are met.

 

The old joke about "fusion power always being 30 years away" still holds true, as each time we get over one obstacle, we learn about even more that need to be overcome.

 

We continue to make stunning progress in all fields of science. The pace of technological progress is accelerating.

[spud]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

I have provided a NASA link to the possibility of WARP Drive teck being more acceptable. But that"s ignored, WHY??

 

And yes my words dont really matter, but when they are linked to those who Do matter then its a bit "pedantic"  to imply that its taken out of context regarding POSSIBILITIES that even some in scientific disciplines like "quantum mechanics" are suggesting. 

 

Dont really know what your argument is in regards to the link i posted??

 

Lets look at religion, is there ANY testable hypothesis in any religions, that someone walked on water, turned blood or water into wine, rose from the dead, cured a bind man ect..  

 

Blind faith is the Achilles heal to science, but nothing is challenged there, but wee green men having advanced teck to over come vast  distances , of having the teck like  using "warp drive "teck is far fetched ??

 

Science today does not know every thing, thats the beauty of this age, thats the evolution we are on in regards of slowly through the generations of discovering new data that throws up new challenges to present day physics, its an every evolving beast. 

 

Each to their own faith ,but for my part at least  i believe we aint seen  nothing yet.

The new age is still to manifest  and it will and is through "quantum mechanics and "string theory"..

 

Those that say science knows ALL in its present day understandings of this universe are the ones to avoid.

 

There are "peer reviewed" hypothesis regarding the nature of just what this part of the universe is.

 

      

 

 

 

It was ignored because it is a NASA link to the possibility of a WARP Drive. It's only a possibility. Because it's written by NASA staff does not make it science. It's speculation, a flight of fancy, an opinion, a mind game, by some NASA staff. It's not wrong neither is it correct because it's just a speculative article about some possible future advance among other future advances.

And let's look at religion. No there is not a testable hypothesis regarding religion. Blind faith is not an Achilles heel (note the spelling) to science because blind faith has no testable hypotheses either. In that regard science challenges every notion of religion.

"Science today does not know every thing". A ridiculous statement which shows how very very little you understand science. There is no scientist in the over 2000 year history of science that has said they know everything. It's only you and your cohorts. If everything was known, science could necessarily not continue - it would have to stop. According to Karl Popper, science should test the opposite of what is known in order to advance the cumulative knowledge of mankind. So hypotheses are based on observations and stated in the negative. Data is collected by a clearly explained methodology and tested by statistical analyses. The hypothesis is then accepted or rejected within a degree of confidence limits. These confidence  limits are also provided by statistical analysis. Note: nothing is proved or can be proved because science does not know everything.

Now two favours.

You seem to like to tell people about "quantum mechanics and "string theory". I'm sure many people, including myself aren't very clear on how these theories are going to bring "a new age"    so an explanation would be appreciated. In your own words, of course. Here was me thinking that they were explanations, silly me.

What exactly is a "peer reviewed hypothesis" I've never heard of such a thing, Could you enlighten me?

 

Lastly it's etc from the Latin etcetera, NOT ect.

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, EH11 said:

 

This is where science falls on it's own sword though, our science can explain so little that using testable hypothesis renders science senseless.  So much of science is guesswork and built of hypothesis that is increasingly questionable. See quantum dynamics or epigenetics in the field of physics and biology as examples.  

 

 

Like the neighbour's dog who "wouldn't stop baking", you haven't a clue what you're doing, have you?