Log in:  

Register

The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

06 May 2016 20:46

Well there are perfectly reasonable theories such as in string theory where the big bang occurred as a collision of branes in a multidimensional already existing universe. Not that I understand it very well. But it's not a matter of something from nothing.

John Swanson


And the journey into scientific fantasy is complete. I thought physics was supposed to be about explaining the physical universe we inhabit? How is string theory tied to physical in any way? Multiverses and wormholes may be fun to imagine, they may even be more fun to experience with the aid of LSD but I don't think string theory adds much when far simpler phenomenon defy understanding.

Every culture needs it's creation myths though. Humans seem to have an inherent need for religiosity. We abhor uncertainty, so tell me a good story. It's interesting how frequently the blank piece of paper (nothing) upon which a point is created (God) and by extension of itself (a line -the holy spirit) terminates in a circle (matter, the universe and the son) occurs. So many variations on a theme.

Space, the sun, light, the earth - that must be how the universe was created.
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

06 May 2016 21:57

Starstruck wrote:
Well there are perfectly reasonable theories such as in string theory where the big bang occurred as a collision of branes in a multidimensional already existing universe. Not that I understand it very well. But it's not a matter of something from nothing.

John Swanson


And the journey into scientific fantasy is complete. I thought physics was supposed to be about explaining the physical universe we inhabit? How is string theory tied to physical in any way? Multiverses and wormholes may be fun to imagine, they may even be more fun to experience with the aid of LSD but I don't think string theory adds much when far simpler phenomenon defy understanding.

Every culture needs it's creation myths though. Humans seem to have an inherent need for religiosity. We abhor uncertainty, so tell me a good story. It's interesting how frequently the blank piece of paper (nothing) upon which a point is created (God) and by extension of itself (a line -the holy spirit) terminates in a circle (matter, the universe and the son) occurs. So many variations on a theme.

Space, the sun, light, the earth - that must be how the universe was created.


String theory. worm holes etc are based on scientific knowledge and scientific possibilities
Believing in god has no scientific basis whatsoever , its just man made nonsense.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

06 May 2016 22:07

ray j willings wrote:
Starstruck wrote:
Well there are perfectly reasonable theories such as in string theory where the big bang occurred as a collision of branes in a multidimensional already existing universe. Not that I understand it very well. But it's not a matter of something from nothing.

John Swanson


And the journey into scientific fantasy is complete. I thought physics was supposed to be about explaining the physical universe we inhabit? How is string theory tied to physical in any way? Multiverses and wormholes may be fun to imagine, they may even be more fun to experience with the aid of LSD but I don't think string theory adds much when far simpler phenomenon defy understanding.

Every culture needs it's creation myths though. Humans seem to have an inherent need for religiosity. We abhor uncertainty, so tell me a good story. It's interesting how frequently the blank piece of paper (nothing) upon which a point is created (God) and by extension of itself (a line -the holy spirit) terminates in a circle (matter, the universe and the son) occurs. So many variations on a theme.

Space, the sun, light, the earth - that must be how the universe was created.


String theory. worm holes etc are based on scientific knowledge and scientific possibilities
Believing in god has no scientific basis whatsoever , its just man made nonsense.


How can you know something that has never been observed? Science just becomes a word without meaning, or rather maths, science and fantasy become interchangeable.
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

06 May 2016 23:30

Starstruck wrote:
How can you know something that has never been observed? Science just becomes a word without meaning, or rather maths, science and fantasy become interchangeable.


Most of what we know we have never observed. I know there are billions of people on earth, but I've never observed most of them. I certainly have never counted them.

I know that George Washington existed, but I never observed him.

I know that birds lay eggs, but I've never observed them doing so.

I know that I have various organs in my body, which in turn are composed of cells. I've never observed them.

I know that money has value, but I've never observed value.

I know that 2 + 2 = 4, but I've never observed them doing so.

I know that words have meanings, but I've never observed a meaning.

I know that you're conscious, but I can't observe your consciousness.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,085
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

07 May 2016 00:23

Merckx index wrote:
Starstruck wrote:
How can you know something that has never been observed? Science just becomes a word without meaning, or rather maths, science and fantasy become interchangeable.


Most of what we know we have never observed. I know there are billions of people on earth, but I've never observed most of them. I certainly have never counted them.

I know that George Washington existed, but I never observed him.

I know that birds lay eggs, but I've never observed them doing so.

I know that I have various organs in my body, which in turn are composed of cells. I've never observed them.

I know that money has value, but I've never observed value.

I know that 2 + 2 = 4, but I've never observed them doing so.

I know that words have meanings, but I've never observed a meaning.

I know that you're conscious, but I can't observe your consciousness.


Thank you for confirming that we're not talking about physics.
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

07 May 2016 00:40

You do realize that you expressed this idea using quantum mechanics, right?

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,332
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

07 May 2016 01:11

ScienceIsCool wrote:You do realize that you expressed this idea using quantum mechanics, right?

John Swanson


I have to admit that there are similarities...
http://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-turned-microsoft-ai-teen-tay-into-horny-foul-mouthed-sex-bot-racist/
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

07 May 2016 06:26

ray j willings wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
ray j willings wrote:check this from 1.17 its so good at around 1.44 it looks really real. I still cant work out how it was done or is it real ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCt2Frq2iW8

Why don't you start a "X-files" thread and keep this nonsense out of the cosmology thread.


Your a very angry person. alien life is relevant to this thread , look at the title.
I found that film very interesting , I could not work out if it's fake how they made that Alien look so real.
So instead of getting angry, look at the film and tell me how they faked it . Its better than any Hollywood alien I have ever seen.
I am asking for opinions. Now if you think its fake tell me how they did it? Its not any CGI I have ever seen and if you look at the head and neck there is no way its a fake head .
How did they do it or is it real . What do you think?

Not sure what makes you think I'm angry?

It's a thread about cosmology and the universe, not about fake films or how they are made.

Discussing alien life is fine, but how about discussing it in context of the actual science of exobiology, e.g. how we might legitimately discover some or evidence of it? Possibilities on Europa, or methods of examining data from exoplanets, or locating life indicative gases on Mars? That sort of thing.

The reality and wonders that science bring to us are far more fascinating and wonderful that the nonsense that gets made up.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,063
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

07 May 2016 10:56

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
ray j willings wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
ray j willings wrote:check this from 1.17 its so good at around 1.44 it looks really real. I still cant work out how it was done or is it real ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCt2Frq2iW8

Why don't you start a "X-files" thread and keep this nonsense out of the cosmology thread.


Your a very angry person. alien life is relevant to this thread , look at the title.
I found that film very interesting , I could not work out if it's fake how they made that Alien look so real.
So instead of getting angry, look at the film and tell me how they faked it . Its better than any Hollywood alien I have ever seen.
I am asking for opinions. Now if you think its fake tell me how they did it? Its not any CGI I have ever seen and if you look at the head and neck there is no way its a fake head .
How did they do it or is it real . What do you think?

Not sure what makes you think I'm angry?

It's a thread about cosmology and the universe, not about fake films or how they are made.

Discussing alien life is fine, but how about discussing it in context of the actual science of exobiology, e.g. how we might legitimately discover some or evidence of it? Possibilities on Europa, or methods of examining data from exoplanets, or locating life indicative gases on Mars? That sort of thing.

The reality and wonders that science bring to us are far more fascinating and wonderful that the nonsense that gets made up.


So you think that there are no other civilisations out there? We can't go there because you think its nonsense.
How do you know that film is fake? You don't and I don't that's why I posted it. I can't see the how it was made and I was hoping other posters would take a look and give their opinion and maybe have some expert knowledge in how that film was made. I have certainly not seen it debunked and these things are usually debunked.
I certainly am not saying its real but I have nothing that shows its a fake.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

Re: The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

07 May 2016 12:45

Merckx index wrote:
Starstruck wrote:
How can you know something that has never been observed? Science just becomes a word without meaning, or rather maths, science and fantasy become interchangeable.


Most of what we know we have never observed. I know there are billions of people on earth, but I've never observed most of them. I certainly have never counted them.

There's plenty of evidence that the earth is real and that people are real, and there's plenty of data concerning the numbers of people.
I know that George Washington existed, but I never observed him.

Lots of evidence that he existed.

I know that birds lay eggs, but I've never observed them doing so.

...but you could easily enough
[
I know that I have various organs in my body, which in turn are composed of cells. I've never observed them.
...but you could

I know that money has value, but I've never observed value.

Grab a bill and use it to light a fire
I know that 2 + 2 = 4, but I've never observed them doing so.

Now you're just being plain silly.
I know that words have meanings, but I've never observed a meaning.

That's a pretty clever one. If you watch your house burn down it probably means you're homeless.
I know that you're conscious, but I can't observe your consciousness.

You can certainly observe behaviours that would suggest consciousness though. Again there's evidence.

Other than highly speculative, theoretical maths constructs where is the evidence for string theory, wormholes, and multiverses? It's highly likely we'll never prove or disprove these things and there are plenty of physicists that use the word fantasy, particularly concerning string theory.

Is String Theory Science?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

07 May 2016 14:38

Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

Re:

07 May 2016 15:12

Starstruck wrote:Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/


To be clear, is your position that physics and cosmology is pseudo-science?

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,332
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

07 May 2016 15:30

ScienceIsCool wrote:
Starstruck wrote:Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/


To be clear, is your position that physics and cosmology is pseudo-science?

John Swanson


Not at all. It's just very strange...far more amazing than we can understand. Mostly I take exception with the certainty (and often arrogance) with which these ideas are presented. Let's give credit where credit is due: nature is pretty crazy.
The Case of the Disappearing Quasars
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-of-the-disappearing-quasars/

Birth Mystery of Stellar Snow Globe Deepens
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141120-starstruck-globular-cluster-astronomy-science/

Big Bang survivors send astronomy back to the drawing board
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/magazine/12/223/big-bang-survivors-send-astronomy-back-to-the-drawing-board/

Mysterious pulsar has astronomers in a spin
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/10/15/3038501.htm
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

07 May 2016 16:51

I agree that there are so many weird things out there. Remember that recent observation of a very large, aperiodic dimming of a star? The possible explanations range from unprecedented comet swarms to Dyson sphere levels of alien construction. I think it's awesome that we have so much left to explore. Kind of like in particle physics. The Standard Model works really, really well but from certain observations we *know* that it's wrong. Fixing the model (e.g., SUSY) or finding a new one (e.g., string theory) has spurred a lot of good minds into action. I can't wait to find out what the actual answer is! BTW, that's pretty much why LHC was built - to give us the tools we need to explore.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,332
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

07 May 2016 17:08

ScienceIsCool wrote:I agree that there are so many weird things out there. Remember that recent observation of a very large, aperiodic dimming of a star? The possible explanations range from unprecedented comet swarms to Dyson sphere levels of alien construction. I think it's awesome that we have so much left to explore. Kind of like in particle physics. The Standard Model works really, really well but from certain observations we *know* that it's wrong. Fixing the model (e.g., SUSY) or finding a new one (e.g., string theory) has spurred a lot of good minds into action. I can't wait to find out what the actual answer is! BTW, that's pretty much why LHC was built - to give us the tools we need to explore.

John Swanson


I think it's all really cool but I always remember that we're just apes out on the fringe of nowhere really. I don't pretend to understand much of anything but I certainly appreciate the effort of others while understanding that we're groping around in the dark.

Aside from our limited perspective and that we build tools based on that limited perspective there's so much noise to filter out to find a signal (and then interpret it). Who knows? We can know that humans are very prone to confirm their own biases though. I try to remain open minded but skeptical. I really love the pictures that roll in though. What an amazing place and experience. Bizarre and wonderful. Then I look around at the human condition and the tragic comedy...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Shakespeare
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

09 May 2016 11:43

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/?utm_content=buffer93e5a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

So are particle physicists inventing or discovering? ...or discovering their invention...
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

Re:

09 May 2016 17:02

Starstruck wrote:The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/?utm_content=buffer93e5a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

So are particle physicists inventing or discovering? ...or discovering their invention...


Are you aware that I discussed Hofmann's theory upthread?
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,085
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

09 May 2016 17:20

Merckx index wrote:
Starstruck wrote:The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/?utm_content=buffer93e5a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

So are particle physicists inventing or discovering? ...or discovering their invention...


Are you aware that I discussed Hofmann's theory upthread?


I am, and I commented on it. The mystics have been talking like this for centuries if not millennia by studying their own apparatus, thus the link I posted. I also noticed you posted a link about gravitational waves. I don't know what that means either though. Two theoretical objects (blackholes) collide and produce gravitational waves that last for a very brief time and are detected on earth. I just don't know what to make of any of that, I really don't. Look at the astronomical "back to the drawing board" links I posted above. I think it would be really cool if we could send a probe out into space to observe one of these hypothesised blackholes and see what it "really" (by our self created instrument) looks like. The universe is a mysterious place and while we can use quantum mechanics are we discovering or inventing?
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

09 May 2016 17:57

The gravity waves are caused by two super-massive (black holes, neutron stars, etc) that are just about to collide. As they orbit one another, the distortions in the fabric of space create a wave-like pattern that ripples outwards. Just before the objects collide is when the effect is strongest and therefore "easiest" to detect. And what are they detecting? The wave is actually a contraction of space itself. Imagine that one meter is now less than a meter. Weird huh? But two independent detectors measured such a contraction and the data correlates perfectly. How much of a contraction? 10^-15 meters per meter... Absolutely amazing stuff.

Check it out: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

In short, we are not inventing. We are very much observing.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,332
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

09 May 2016 18:12

ScienceIsCool wrote:The gravity waves are caused by two super-massive (black holes, neutron stars, etc) that are just about to collide. As they orbit one another, the distortions in the fabric of space create a wave-like pattern that ripples outwards. Just before the objects collide is when the effect is strongest and therefore "easiest" to detect. And what are they detecting? The wave is actually a contraction of space itself. Imagine that one meter is now less than a meter. Weird huh? But two independent detectors measured such a contraction and the data correlates perfectly. How much of a contraction? 10^-15 meters per meter... Absolutely amazing stuff.

Check it out: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

In short, we are not inventing. We are very much observing.

John Swanson


Given the nature of quantum theory I don't know how you can say that with such certainty. Regardless, how is it possible for two black holes to occupy the same area of space, given their inherent (theoretical) properties? There's something wrong/funny with that proposition.
Starstruck
Member
 
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 16 Apr 2016 22:13

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Back to top