Astronomy / The Universe

[Justin Z]

13 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

The moon's tidally locked.

 

Nice one! Makes perfect sense once you know the answer.

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Nice one! Makes perfect sense once you know the answer.

There's me thinking it was gravity. Oh and the moon is in free fall but its orbit throws it away from the Earth. I now have a sore head.

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

There's me thinking it was gravity. Oh and the moon is in free fall but its orbit throws it away from the Earth. I now have a sore head.

Sadly this is true also.  It is commonly thought that objects like the ISS are floating in space.   They are not, they are actually falling towards earth due to gravity.    It’s only the fact that they have been given orbital velocity that they keep moving sideways and the earth moves away from underneath them at the same rate they are falling.

 

as an example, when the space shuttle starts it’s return to earth, it actually comes in backwards using its thrusters to slow its orbit down, hence gravity starts to dominate, pulling it down.   Once it is sufficiently caught it does a 180 flip to come in and land.   The though that it comes in backwards I find quite funny.

[superjack]

3 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

The though that it comes in backwards I find quite funny.

Thats probably why there weren't many female shuttle pilots.

[maroonlegions]

A New Recipe for Hunting Alien Life

For most life in the universe, oxygen might be a deadly poison. Surprisingly, that might make such creatures easier for astrobiologists to find

SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by maroonlegions

[Sidelight]

12 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

You are flying affy fast and loose with your interpretations there, buddy.

 

Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe? https://creation.com/bible-cosmological-expansion

 

 

 

 

There are half dozen or more verses which convey the idea of God stretching out the heavens and earth.

He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea. -Job 9: 8.

It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it.  My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshalled their starry hosts. - Isaiah 45:12.

The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person - Zechariah 12:1.

I am sure you get the idea.

The Expansion of the Universe [AIG]

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong. [Answers in Genesis]

Edited February 1, 2018 by alfajambo

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

There are half dozen or more verses which convey the idea of God stretching out the heavens and earth.

He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea. -Job 9: 8.

It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it.  My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshalled their starry hosts. - Isaiah 45:12.

The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person - Zechariah 12:1.

I am sure you get the idea.

The Expansion of the Universe [AIG]

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong. [Answers in Genesis]

 

Jesus effing Christ!

 

Like I say, fast and loose.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Ray Gin

[deesidejambo]

Not sure if this helps but the ancient Greeks also describe the creation of the universe out of nothing, similar to the Big Bang theory.

 

Just shows that theology may be rooted in legend and that science is just a way to explain it.

 

or something like that.

[Maple Leaf]

5 hours ago, alfajambo said:

There are half dozen or more verses which convey the idea of God stretching out the heavens and earth.

He alone stretches out the heavens _ and treads on the waves of the sea. -Job 9: 8.

It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it.  My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshalled their starry hosts. - Isaiah 45:12.

The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person - Zechariah 12:1.

I am sure you get the idea.

The Expansion of the Universe [AIG]

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong. [Answers in Genesis]

 

When it comes to trying to understand the universe, I'll take the opinions of a 21st century astronomer over the opinions of an unknown Bronze Age nomad every time.

 

And God didn't write the verses you quote.  A human did.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

When it comes to trying to understand the universe, I'll take the opinions of a 21st century astronomer over the opinions of an unknown Bronze Age nomad every time.

 

And God didn't write the verses you quote.  A human did.

You know you just contradicted yourself there.

[John Gentleman]

On 01/02/2018 at 08:55, deesidejambo said:

 

Nope but thanks for trying.

 

The answer is a bit complicated so bear with me.

 

The moon is tidally-locked to earth, in other words you always see the same side of the moon viewed from earth no matter when - it doesn't spin on its axis relative to earth, or to be more exact it spins at exactly the same rate as it orbits the earth - 28 days to be exact-ish.     No humans except the Apollo astronauts have ever seen the far side of the moon. 

 

Anyway, this worked in the Apollo missions favour, as the six landing sites had to be chosen on the earth-side in order to maintain permanent radio contact with Houston.  

 

Now given this tidal locking, the earth, as viewed from the moon, is in the same place in the sky, every day - it never moves.  It doesn't rise or set - it is there all the time in the same place, and as the landing sites were all chosen on the earth-facing side, the earth was always almost directly above the Astros heads, so never appears in photos.

 

In fact I think there are a couple of photos - one of Aldrin I think but taken with the camera on the ground looking upwards to get the Astro and the Earth in the same shot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apollo pics...

[Maple Leaf]

9 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You know you just contradicted yourself there.

Nope, I didn't know that.  How so?

[ri Alban]

You'll take the word of a human while dismissing the word of a human. Probably experts of their own era. But hey I'm sure in 2000 years some other poster on JKB will have the same view on your astronomer as the opinion of some unknown guy from the nuclear age.

 

l give Einstein 20 more years before all his genius is dismissed as 20th bollox.

Edited February 2, 2018 by ri Alban

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

You'll take the word of a human while dismissing the word of a human. Probably experts of their own era. But hey I'm sure in 2000 years some other poster on JKB will have the same view on your astronomer as the opinion of some unknown guy from the nuclear age.

 

l give Einstein 20 more years before all his genius is dismissed as 20th bollox.

 

I think you just agreed with me.

 

The people who wrote the Old Testament wrote what they did, based on the information available to them at that time.  We now know that what they wrote was bollox (your word).

 

In 2000 years (or 20 years or 50 years) Einstein's writings might very well be viewed as bollox too, but it's the best we currently have, based on available information.

 

When it comes to astronomy, I'll always go with the views of the scientist who has 2000 years of additional information.

[Sidelight]

21 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Jesus effing Christ!

 

Like I say, fast and loose.

Wear a Hearts top and bring an umbrella.

I’ll look out for you.

https://www.hw.ac.uk/uk/events/heriot-watt-chaplaincy-s-annual-public.htm

 

[maroonlegions]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I think you just agreed with me.

 

The people who wrote the Old Testament wrote what they did, based on the information available to them at that time.  We now know that what they wrote was bollox (your word).

 

In 2000 years (or 20 years or 50 years) Einstein's writings might very well be viewed as bollox too, but it's the best we currently have, based on available information.

 

When it comes to astronomy, I'll always go with the views of the scientist who has 2000 years of additional information.

 

Yip science is the way forward.

 

What if though our laws of physics are just right for the PART of the universe we inhabit and that our laws of physics might not apply to other parts of the universe.. 

 

Remember coming across this article below and thinking that there  could be possibly  be breakthroughs that could very well challenge  the current scientific protocols. What if science does not know all there is to know and what if that "all there is to know" is well belong  current scientific understanding due to our place in the universe.

 

Laws of physics may change across the universe;

"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.

 

The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space, and suggests that alpha varies in space rather than time. “I’d quietly hoped we’d simply find the same thing that Keck found,” King says. “This was a real shock.”

 

Bar magnet

Moreover, the team’s analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.

 

This “dipole” alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the universe. It does not, however, line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the big bang.

 

Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry – and thus life – to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.

Extraordinary claim;

Even if the result is accepted for publication, it is going to be hard to convince other scientists that the laws of physics might need a rewrite. A spatial variation in the fine-structure constant would be “truly trans-formative”, according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing.

 

If the interpretation of the light is correct, it is “a huge deal”, agrees Craig Hogan, head of the Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics in Batavia, Illinois. But like Cowie, he suspects there is a flaw somewhere in the analysis. “I think the result is not real,” he says.

 

Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

 

Updated on 9 September: The analysis of VLT data was amended to credit Julian King;

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

42 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

What if science does not know all there is to know and what if that "all there is to know" is well belong  current scientific understanding due to our place in the universe.

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

18 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

Strange post show me were the fairy tale is in regards to the article i posted  that you nit picked that comment of mine from.

 

This part below;

 

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.

 

Now show me how you came to the conclusions that part of my post you chose to attack is in any way a fairy tale. Maybe you should go and pick o someone else. 

 

 

 

Those that claim science knows every thing are the ones to avoid and the ones who create fairy tales too.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by maroonlegions

[ri Alban]

25 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Strange post show me were the fairy tale is in regards to the article i posted  that you nit picked that comment of mine from.

 

This part below;

 

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.

 

Now show me how you came to the conclusions that part of my post you chose to attack is in any way a fairy tale. Maybe you should go and pick o someone else. 

 

 

 

Those that claim science knows every thing are the ones to avoid and the ones who create fairy tales too.

 

Fairy tales, like multi verses, infinity, the big bang, the formation of the planets, orb cloud, time travel, worm Holes. The list goes on in the religion of science.

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Strange post show me were the fairy tale is in regards to the article i posted  that you nit picked that comment of mine from.

 

 

You asked a question.

 

This question:

 

21 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

What if science does not know all there is to know and what if that "all there is to know" is well belong  current scientific understanding due to our place in the universe.

 

It's not a clever question.  It's not a reasoned question.  It's not a sensible question.  It's not a rational question.  Most importantly of all, it's not a scientific question.  Sorry if you don't like reading that, but it's true.

 

That's not nitpicking; it's fundamental to any discussion about scientific theories - and it is the most common reason why we see so much bad science, so many popular misconceptions and myths about science, and so much plain old mumbo jumbo among the general public.

 

The whole point of scientific methods is that science DOES NOT KNOW ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW.  Scientific researchers know that, which is why they keep working.  If the day ever comes when humanity has all the answers to the universe's scientific questions and puzzles, then there will be no need for any further scientific research, and the scientific researchers can stop.  But that's not likely to happen any time soon, is it?

[ri Alban]

46 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

You asked a question.

 

This question:

 

 

It's not a clever question.  It's not a reasoned question.  It's not a sensible question.  It's not a rational question.  Most importantly of all, it's not a scientific question.  Sorry if you don't like reading that, but it's true.

 

That's not nitpicking; it's fundamental to any discussion about scientific theories - and it is the most common reason why we see so much bad science, so many popular misconceptions and myths about science, and so much plain old mumbo jumbo among the general public.

 

The whole point of scientific methods is that science DOES NOT KNOW ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW.  Scientific researchers know that, which is why they keep working.  If the day ever comes when humanity has all the answers to the universe's scientific questions and puzzles, then there will be no need for any further scientific research, and the scientific researchers can stop.  But that's not likely to happen any time soon, is it?

Rhetorical

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

You asked a question.

 

This question:

 

 

It's not a clever question.  It's not a reasoned question.  It's not a sensible question.  It's not a rational question.  Most importantly of all, it's not a scientific question.  Sorry if you don't like reading that, but it's true.

 

That's not nitpicking; it's fundamental to any discussion about scientific theories - and it is the most common reason why we see so much bad science, so many popular misconceptions and myths about science, and so much plain old mumbo jumbo among the general public.

 

The whole point of scientific methods is that science DOES NOT KNOW ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW.  Scientific researchers know that, which is why they keep working.  If the day ever comes when humanity has all the answers to the universe's scientific questions and puzzles, then there will be no need for any further scientific research, and the scientific researchers can stop.  But that's not likely to happen any time soon, is it?

 

I asked a question that in "hindsight"  was  based on a FACT and  not on a fairy tale as you implied in your condescending meme that was directed at one part of my comment of my  post you singled out.

 

That is what is not fair, you jumping on ONE part of my comment and taking it out of context in its relation to the content of that WHOLE post i made.

 

Spice it  up all you like  with your clever rhetoric  but my quote  " science does not know all there is to know at present" is perfectly legit in the context of the topic and content of the whole of that post i made.  

 

So i ask again, were is the mumbo jumbo fairy tales  in my comment in relation to the content of my post that said the following below??

 

*QUOTE*

"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".

 

 

 

So in hindsight my "quote" was justified as  we were dealing with a legitimate and scientifically credible CHALLENGE to what science knew in relation to  "Einstein’s special theory of relativity".

 

That was the primary basis on my comment, that it appears science does not know all there is to know about every thing so why the need for the condescending theme implying fairy tales. 

 

So in what way does  the following *quote*  below, conspire the justification of   "fairy tales "  and  also not deserve  at least  in "hindsight" ,the  perception that indeed  "science does not know all there is to know with its present scientific understandings of the UNIVERSE.

 

*QUOTE*

"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".

Edited February 3, 2018 by maroonlegions

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Fairy tales, like multi verses, infinity, the big bang, the formation of the planets, orb cloud, time travel, worm Holes. The list goes on in the religion of science.

 

I assume that you mean Oort cloud.  A multiverse is nothing more than speculation; it's not science.  And time travel is science fiction, not science.

 

Do you have disdain for all science, or only astronomy?

[Sidelight]

51 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I assume that you mean Oort cloud.  A multiverse is nothing more than speculation; it's not science.  And time travel is science fiction, not science.

 

Do you have disdain for all science, or only astronomy?

The Oort cloud, something which we have no evidence for; except the imagination of evolutionary scientists who are desperate to defend their unfounded beliefs, is treated as fact because it’s “natural". Yes?

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, alfajambo said:

The Oort cloud, something which we have no evidence for; except the imagination of evolutionary scientists who are desperate to defend their unfounded beliefs, is treated as fact because it’s “natural". Yes?

 

No.  The Oort cloud is hypothetical, and no astronomer I've read claims otherwise.

 

Which desperate evolutionary scientists are you referring to?

[Sidelight]

3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

No.  The Oort cloud is hypothetical, and no astronomer I've read claims otherwise.

 

Which desperate evolutionary scientists are you referring to?

Good evening Maple, I hope you are well.

The Oort cloud like so many astronomical evolutionary hypotheses is very often passed off as fact. When as you clearly state, and as far as we know is a work of fiction, pure conjecture.  A convenient evolutionary time scale home for long period comets.

[Imagine we could accelerate continuously at 1 g -- what we're comfortable with on good old terra firma -- to the midpoint of our voyage, and decelerate continuously at 1 g until we arrive at our destination. It would take a day to get to Mars, a week and a half to Pluto, a year to the Oort Cloud, and a few years to the nearest stars.]   CARL SAGAN, Pale Blue Dot

The BB model itself has more holes in it than a sieve, and simply does not come close to addressing the origin of the universe.

 

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Rhetorical

 

If you ask a rhetorical question, you shouldn't attempt to answer it.  If you do the literary device of asking a rhetorical question has failed.

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If you ask a rhetorical question, you shouldn't attempt to answer it.  If you do the literary device of asking a rhetorical question has failed.

Indeed, but all the same I think he usually tries to make a statement.

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

I asked a question that in "hindsight"  was  based on a FACT and  not on a fairy tale as you implied in your condescending meme that was directed at one part of my comment of my  post you singled out.

 

That is what is not fair, you jumping on ONE part of my comment and taking it out of context in its relation to the content of that WHOLE post i made.

 

Spice it  up all you like  with your clever rhetoric  but my quote  " science does not know all there is to know at present" is perfectly legit in the context of the topic and content of the whole of that post i made.  

 

 

 

You asked a question that was irrational and unscientific.  The question had no place in a scientific discussion.  You might as well have asked why unicorns are hollow.

 

Fair?  You want fair?  Here's fair - scientific analysis needs rigour and careful thought.  If you want to be fair to yourself and fair to scientific thinking, be rigorous and think carefully, and don't expect to be let off lightly when you don't.

 

I have searched this thread and the only time you said "science does not know all there is to know at present" was in that post I've quoted above.  So if your quote is "perfectly legit", it wasn't so when I posted my message - because you hadn't said it.  In other words, don't say one thing and then say something different afterwards and claim that's what you meant all along.  I'm not a mindreader.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I assume that you mean Oort cloud.  A multiverse is nothing more than speculation; it's not science.  And time travel is science fiction, not science.

 

Do you have disdain for all science, or only astronomy?

No distain at all, I love it. It's only when folk try to be all dismissive of other peoples views, when in fact, as you've said, some are pure fiction. Then I get a bit petty. Apologies.

And Yes I know it's the Oort cloud. Simple mistake.

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Indeed, but all the same I think he usually tries to make a statement.

 

There are three particular problems with a lot of commentary on science by the general public. 

 

One is that they start by saying "imagine situation X", and then going on to talk about situation X as if it's real rather than something they've just imagined. 

 

The second is that they do not realise that scientific research and analysis is based on the central idea that you don't know everything and don't know enough.  So you gather enough information to allow you to describe a phenomenon in scientific terms as accurately as you can.  For as long as nobody disproves the description it holds as true.  But when someone can show that the description isn't fully accurate the description is changed to reflect the new information.  It is noteworthy that loads and loads of people have no idea that this is the case.

 

The third is that people get their information about science from non-scientific sources, and sources like that are only interested in headlines, not in science.  So the media will report some obscure and arcane piece of scientific research as possible proof of something dramatic and new - then later when the research is changed, debunked or withdrawn it won't be reported at all, because there's no news value in a story that says "everything's boring and nothing has changed".  But people remember the dramatic story, and never get to read about the retraction or debunking later.  That means that people often have a skewed view of what science is doing, learning and achieving, particularly in the areas like quantum mechanics, gravitational physics and astronomy.

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

There are three particular problems with a lot of commentary on science by the general public. 

 

One is that they start by saying "imagine situation X", and then going on to talk about situation X as if it's real rather than something they've just imagined. 

 

The second is that they do not realise that scientific research and analysis is based on the central idea that you don't know everything and don't know enough.  So you gather enough information to allow you to describe a phenomenon in scientific terms as accurately as you can.  For as long as nobody disproves the description it holds as true.  But when someone can show that the description isn't fully accurate the description is changed to reflect the new information.  It is noteworthy that loads and loads of people have no idea that this is the case.

 

The third is that people get their information about science from non-scientific sources, and sources like that are only interested in headlines, not in science.  So the media will report some obscure and arcane piece of scientific research as possible proof of something dramatic and new - then later when the research is changed, debunked or withdrawn it won't be reported at all, because there's no news value in a story that says "everything's boring and nothing has changed".  But people remember the dramatic story, and never get to read about the retraction or debunking later.  That means that people often have a skewed view of what science is doing, learning and achieving, particularly in the areas like quantum mechanics, gravitational physics and astronomy.

4. Money. Research isn't cheap.

5. Propaganda. This work has to be justified to the people.

[Justin Z]

On 2/2/2018 at 16:23, ri Alban said:

l give Einstein 20 more years before all his genius is dismissed as 20th bollox.

 

Probably impossible, for a multitude of reasons, but the most concrete example that immediately comes to mind is satnav. We all have satnav thanks to Einstein's Theories of Relativity--the satellites floating around up there take into account the relativistic effects that bodies travelling at high speed are subject to, in order to help calculate the positions of things. No relativity, no accuracy. Your satnav is telling you you're in Tenerife instead of Morningside.

 

This "20th century bollocks" has served as an excellent approximation of the way the universe works for all sorts of applications. It even explains why gold, but not other similar metals, is yellowish in colour. And yes, "applications" is a good key word here, because science and scientific research--whether publicly funded or not, but much of it has been--are responsible for just about every single thing you have. That's all the propaganda it would need in a scientifically literate civilisation. Sadly, we by and large do not exist within one of those.

 

It'd be really helpful to read the Relativity of Wrong essay I linked for Smithee earlier. It's short and quite good.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Justin Z

[ri Alban]

19 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Probably impossible, for a multitude of reasons, but the most concrete example that immediately comes to mind is satnav. We all have satnav thanks to Einstein's Theories of Relativity--the satellites floating around up there take into account the relativistic effects that bodies travelling at high speed are subject to, in order to help calculate the positions of things. No relativity, no accuracy. Your satnav is telling you you're in Tenerife instead of Morningside.

 

This "20th century bollocks" has served as an excellent approximation of the way the universe works for all sorts of applications. It even explains why gold, but not other similar metals, is yellowish in colour. And yes, "applications" is a good key word here, because science and scientific research--whether publicly funded or not, but much of it has been--are responsible for just about every single thing you have. That's all the propaganda it would need in a scientifically literate civilisation. Sadly, we by and large do not exist within one of those.

 

It'd be really helpful to read the Relativity of Wrong essay I linked for Smithee earlier. It's short and quite good.

 

I'm more interested in the theory of everything. The one impossible Einstein work.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

4. Money. Research isn't cheap.

5. Propaganda. This work has to be justified to the people.

 

"There are three particular problems with a lot of commentary on science by the general public."

 

Those two might be problems, but they aren't problems with commentary by the general public. 

[Ulysses]

26 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

 Your satnav is telling you you're in Tenerife instead of Morningside.

 

 

If my satnav is going to make an error of that magnitude, I'd prefer it to tell me I'm in Morningside when in fact I'm in Tenerife - especially at this time of year. 

[Ulysses]

55 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

This "20th century bollocks" has served as an excellent approximation of the way the universe works for all sorts of applications. It even explains why gold, but not other similar metals, is yellowish in colour. And yes, "applications" is a good key word here, because science and scientific research--whether publicly funded or not, but much of it has been--are responsible for just about every single thing you have. That's all the propaganda it would need in a scientifically literate civilisation. Sadly, we by and large do not exist within one of those.

 

 

 

I think another factor is that people don't realise how slowly a lot of the work of scientific discovery takes place.  By that I mean that discoveries and proofs/revisions of theories are quite quick when looked at on a historical timescale, but quite slow when considered by reference to human lifespans.  For example, although the notion of atoms was around for centuries, it was only in 1803 that a clear theory of what they are and how they work was developed.  For most of the 19th century it was believed that the atom was the smallest particle of matter in existence.  Faraday's experiments in the 1850s more or less proved that subatomic particles had to exist, but it took until the 1890s to definitively prove the existence of the electron.  Once that happened the other particles were discovered in reasonably rapid order in terms of history - but that still meant that it took until the 1930s to discover the neutron.

 

In more times, the LIGO experiment to directly detect and measure gravitational waves is another example.  In 2017 the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to three physicists for their contribution to the experiment -  Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss and Barry Barish.  LIGO has made five individual detections of gravitational waves, four caused by colliding pairs of black holes, and one caused by a pair of colliding neutron stars. 

 

The first detection happened in September 2015.  That was 27 years after LIGO was first commenced as a funded experiment in 1988.  The experiment was conceptualised about 7-8 years before that, and in fact papers proposing the use of interferometers to detect gravitational waves were written as long ago as the early 1960s, but the technology to build them didn't exist at the time.

[maroonlegions]

Another breakthrough, another scientific discovery in regards to astronomy and one that was suspected but now looks to have been proven.

 

There are planets in other galaxies.

 

No fairy stories here then. Or the need for condescending memes.

 

 

FOR THE FIRST TIME, PLANETS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER GALAXY!

 

quote.

   "The study which details their discovery, titled “Probing Planets in Extragalactic Galaxies Using Quasar Microlensing“, recently appeared in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. The study was conducted by Xinyu Dai and Eduardo Guerras, a postdoctoral researcher and professor from the Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Oklahoma, respectively".

 

Using the microlensing method, a team of astrophysicists have found the first extra-galactic planets! Credit: NASA/Tim Pyle

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by maroonlegions

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

Another breakthrough, another scientific discovery in regards to astronomy and one that was suspected but now looks to have been proven.

 

There are planets in other galaxies.

 

No fairy stories here then. Or the need for condescending memes.

 

 

FOR THE FIRST TIME, PLANETS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER GALAXY!

 

quote.

   "The study which details their discovery, titled “Probing Planets in Extragalactic Galaxies Using Quasar Microlensing“, recently appeared in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. The study was conducted by Xinyu Dai and Eduardo Guerras, a postdoctoral researcher and professor from the Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Oklahoma, respectively".

 

Using the microlensing method, a team of astrophysicists have found the first extra-galactic planets! Credit: NASA/Tim Pyle

 

Condescending, you first.

[Unknown user]

11 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Probably impossible, for a multitude of reasons, but the most concrete example that immediately comes to mind is satnav. We all have satnav thanks to Einstein's Theories of Relativity--the satellites floating around up there take into account the relativistic effects that bodies travelling at high speed are subject to, in order to help calculate the positions of things. No relativity, no accuracy. Your satnav is telling you you're in Tenerife instead of Morningside.

 

This "20th century bollocks" has served as an excellent approximation of the way the universe works for all sorts of applications. It even explains why gold, but not other similar metals, is yellowish in colour. And yes, "applications" is a good key word here, because science and scientific research--whether publicly funded or not, but much of it has been--are responsible for just about every single thing you have. That's all the propaganda it would need in a scientifically literate civilisation. Sadly, we by and large do not exist within one of those.

 

It'd be really helpful to read the Relativity of Wrong essay I linked for Smithee earlier. It's short and quite good.

 

I promise I'll get round to it

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Condescending, you first.

 

Well i never started it. 

 

Seems persona bias trolling  outwith scientific back ups seems to be the only condescending theme directed at my recent posts.

 

Penny for this thought   though, if i had posted the last two articles WITHOUT credible scientific sources , the sheer level of seethe at such a lack of sources would have turned into a JKB witch hunt  by the usual posters.

 

Feck it i say, have the balls and courage to stand by the content of what you post.

 

Seems some are never happy unless they are putting you down, even regardless of credible sources.

 

 Some random  trying to make out its their final word that counts over scientific sources now that deserves a  and a 

 

 

 

 

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

 

The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

Edited February 4, 2018 by maroonlegions

[ri Alban]

22 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Well i never started it. 

 

Seems persona bias trolling  outwith scientific back ups seems to be the only condescending theme directed at my recent posts.

 

Penny for this thought   though, if i had posted the last two articles WITHOUT credible scientific sources , the sheer level of seethe at such a lack of sources would have turned into a JKB witch hunt  by the usual posters.

 

Feck it i say, have the balls and courage to stand by the content of what you post.

 

Seems some are never happy unless they are putting you down, even regardless of credible sources.

 

 Some random  trying to make out its their final word that counts over scientific sources now that deserves a  and a 

 

 

 

 

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

 

The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

Whose putting you down?

I like reading everyones posts. But... When I read patronising pish like fairy tales etc... I just puts my back up. Most of your evidence is theory and conjecture, yes it might have mathematical testimonial backing but  unless just like god you can show me first hand evidence to support it, I'll not believe everything I'm told by science. Example : cigarettes are not harmful. That was scientifically bolstered falsehoods. So...

[Maple Leaf]

15 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Good evening Maple, I hope you are well.

The Oort cloud like so many astronomical evolutionary hypotheses is very often passed off as fact. When as you clearly state, and as far as we know is a work of fiction, pure conjecture.  A convenient evolutionary time scale home for long period comets.

[Imagine we could accelerate continuously at 1 g -- what we're comfortable with on good old terra firma -- to the midpoint of our voyage, and decelerate continuously at 1 g until we arrive at our destination. It would take a day to get to Mars, a week and a half to Pluto, a year to the Oort Cloud, and a few years to the nearest stars.]   CARL SAGAN, Pale Blue Dot

The BB model itself has more holes in it than a sieve, and simply does not come close to addressing the origin of the universe.

 

 

I'm fine, alfajambo.  Thanks for asking.

 

Quoting Carl Sagan to me is always a winning strategy.  I own 12 of his books, including Pale Blue Dot.  He's a hero of mine, so I'll rarely if ever challenge what he's written.

 

If you think that the Big Bang model is wrong, a career in astrophysics awaits you.  The last time I checked, most cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists have fallen for it.  Go get 'em.  

 

 

[ri Alban]

18 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm fine, alfajambo.  Thanks for asking.

 

Quoting Carl Sagan to me is always a winning strategy.  I own 12 of his books, including Pale Blue Dot.  He's a hero of mine, so I'll rarely if ever challenge what he's written.

 

If you think that the Big Bang model is wrong, a career in astrophysics awaits you.  The last time I checked, most cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists have fallen for it.  Go get 'em.  

 

 

There seems to be a growing opinion that the universe was always here. 

[Maple Leaf]

53 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

There seems to be a growing opinion that the universe was always here. 

OK, but in what form?

 

For a long time, it was thought that the universe was static. Because of Edwin Hubble's observations, it was realised that the universe is expanding, and it was possible to calculate the speed of expansion.  Using that data, physicists are able to "rewind the clock", so to speak, and they calculate that some 12 billion years ago, all the galaxies we see were all back in the same place.  That's the origin of the Big Bang.

 

So, while the universe might indeed always have been here, it almost certainly was not in the form it is today.   There is a lot of evidence to support that view but, unavoidably, there is also speculation and conjecture.  Obviously, we can never know for certain what the universe was like when only basic particles existed, not even atoms.

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

OK, but in what form?

 

For a long time, it was thought that the universe was static. Because of Edwin Hubble's observations, it was realised that the universe is expanding, and it was possible to calculate the speed of expansion.  Using that data, physicists are able to "rewind the clock", so to speak, and they calculate that some 12 billion years ago, all the galaxies we see were all back in the same place.  That's the origin of the Big Bang.

 

So, while the universe might indeed always have been here, it almost certainly was not in the form it is today.   There is a lot of evidence to support that view but, unavoidably, there is also speculation and conjecture.  Obviously, we can never know for certain what the universe was like when only basic particles existed, not even atoms.

Of course, but what if said particles that created the expansion are now extinct. What do we do? Keep guessing.

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

OK, but in what form?

 

For a long time, it was thought that the universe was static. Because of Edwin Hubble's observations, it was realised that the universe is expanding, and it was possible to calculate the speed of expansion.  Using that data, physicists are able to "rewind the clock", so to speak, and they calculate that some 12 billion years ago, all the galaxies we see were all back in the same place.  That's the origin of the Big Bang.

 

So, while the universe might indeed always have been here, it almost certainly was not in the form it is today.   There is a lot of evidence to support that view but, unavoidably, there is also speculation and conjecture.  Obviously, we can never know for certain what the universe was like when only basic particles existed, not even atoms.

I'm sorry but I don't buy human calculations on the age of the universe, because we don't have the means to see the whole current universe to make such a leap of faith.

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'm sorry but I don't buy human calculations on the age of the universe, because we don't have the means to see the whole current universe to make such a leap of faith.

 

That's a good point, but we do have ways of "figuring out" how far back we're seeing. So we can at least set an upper bound to the farthest stuff we're able to see--and it's from 13.8 billion years ago. The rate of expansion of the universe (one of the results of the big bang theory) happens to corroborate this--it isn't just mathematical convenience, it's a useful indication that we're on the right track and ought to continue our lines of inquiry in that direction. Maybe we won't always think 13.8 billion years, but at present anyway, it's the best supported answer.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Well i never started it. 

 

Seems persona bias trolling  outwith scientific back ups seems to be the only condescending theme directed at my recent posts.

 

Penny for this thought   though, if i had posted the last two articles WITHOUT credible scientific sources , the sheer level of seethe at such a lack of sources would have turned into a JKB witch hunt  by the usual posters.

 

Feck it i say, have the balls and courage to stand by the content of what you post.

 

Seems some are never happy unless they are putting you down, even regardless of credible sources.

 

 Some random  trying to make out its their final word that counts over scientific sources now that deserves a  and a 

 

 

 

 

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

 

The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

 

Socrates knew the score.

 

[maroonlegions]

12 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Socrates knew the score.