Dark Energy
-
Pete Zahir wrote:
A curve requires 2 dimensions. You could plot a curve across the x and y, or y and z, etc
You think you can't curve in 3 dimensions? Wow - how the heck did we ever get to the moon?! Time is not the 4th dimension in question here. Time isn't really a dimension at all, except in sci fi movies and '4D Cinemas'
PooperPig - Coming Soon
Something after the weekend[^]?
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Time isn't really a dimension at all
Neither is x, y and z - they're just convenient mathematical abstractions ... just like r, θ and φ
- and I suppose you already knew that well enough ... :-\ I've been told our universe just sits in a valley ...Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote:
I don't believe in dark matter, dark every and stuff similar to that
Quite. What these people don't seem to realise is that if there's all this "dark" stuff distorting everything, then everything they're seeing through telescopes is distorted and wrong, therefore all their assumptions based on that information are wrong, therefore there's no "dark" anything.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Oh they realise it, alright. I bet they all regret coining the phrase 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong. Could well be the latter (after all, Newton was) in which case DM and DE are just letters in an equation. But don't be fooled into thinking that they are actually Matter or Energy
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Yes, but it's all based on "observations" of a handful of supernovae seeming to cool faster than expected, and an assumption based on that that they're moving further away quicker than was previously assumed. Me, I reckon that since we don't know precisely the dynamics of supernovae, something else is happening either to make them cool faster than anticipated, or to block/absorb some of the heat, again making them appear to cool faster than anticipated. Something like an expanding cloud of dust that's recently been fused into higher-order atoms and molecules would likely have that kind of effect -- but what are the chances of something like that conveniently surrounding a supernova, eh? Nah, it's much more likely that some idiot needed to publish something radical quickly, or lose his research grant there's some mysterious "dark" thingummy that's at back of it all.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
When peer reviewed papers are, erm, peer reviewed that's exactly the sort of question that gets asked. And just to be picky, they're not 'moving away more quickly' they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger. the analogy of the 'raisins in dough' so often used is only legitimate if raisins also expand in the oven.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Seriously? Where did they teach you this stuff? "Ray" is a descriptive word, used to describe what light looks like, to the human eye. It's not a "thing" in its own right, and it's not measurable (so it can't be used in any kind of calculation), even though it's used in grammatical structures that make it look determinant. i.e. "a pound of sugar" and "a ray of light" might look the same, and give the impression that "ray" is determinant, but it's not. It doesn't matter how big or small a ray of light is, it's still just "a ray of light". So you can't talk about rays as if they're separate from light. They are light -- or a non-unit-ish unit of light.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
They are light
Search google for 'a ray of manure' ... you'll get a hit og two ;)
Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
we represent 'spacetime' as a flat sheet (usually black rubber with white grid lines)
That's just a projection onto a 2D surface so that the uneducated masses can go "oooh, I understand Einstein now" when they visit the science center. In reality, it is the three dimensional space we live in that is curved. It looks straight because there's so little curvature created by the planets or even the sun. But it'll look a lot different near a black hole! Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Marc Clifton wrote:
That's just a projection onto a 2D surface so that the uneducated masses can go "oooh, I understand Einstein now" when they visit the science center.
Very true - but a convenient demonstration nonetheless.
Marc Clifton wrote:
But it'll look a lot different near a black hole!
True - but in the sheet analogy the black hole is a vertical-sided well - so the demonstration model holds up quite well. ripple the sheet and you get gravitational waves stretch it - expansion of the universe (though have to stretch your balls too - which some may find a less than pleasant experience :grin:)
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Something after the weekend[^]?
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Time isn't really a dimension at all
Neither is x, y and z - they're just convenient mathematical abstractions ... just like r, θ and φ
- and I suppose you already knew that well enough ... :-\ I've been told our universe just sits in a valley ...Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
When peer reviewed papers are, erm, peer reviewed that's exactly the sort of question that gets asked. And just to be picky, they're not 'moving away more quickly' they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger. the analogy of the 'raisins in dough' so often used is only legitimate if raisins also expand in the oven.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
:thumbsup: Or even a long way away from a galaxy! Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] File:A Horseshoe Einstein Ring from Hubble.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
Or even a long way away from a galaxy!
Exactly! Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
if raisins also expand in the oven
Which of course they do, absorbing moisture from the mix.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
I'm just impressed you worked out how to type greek letters
Espen Harlinn wrote:
r, θ and φ
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I'm just impressed you worked out how to type greek letters
Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V :doh:
Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I'm just impressed you worked out how to type greek letters
Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V :doh:
Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
They are light
Search google for 'a ray of manure' ... you'll get a hit og two ;)
Espen Harlinn Chief Architect - Powel AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
Whoa, that's the gardening department. Might as well be Greek that's been google-translated to Hawaiian, for me. Through that door, and talk to the missus.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
When peer reviewed papers are, erm, peer reviewed that's exactly the sort of question that gets asked. And just to be picky, they're not 'moving away more quickly' they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger. the analogy of the 'raisins in dough' so often used is only legitimate if raisins also expand in the oven.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
I think you might have misunderstood something you read, there. Nothing's getting bigger (well, novae get bigger because they're explosions), it's all just moving apart. It's the universe that's expanding, not the suns, planets, and teaspoons.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Oh they realise it, alright. I bet they all regret coining the phrase 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong. Could well be the latter (after all, Newton was) in which case DM and DE are just letters in an equation. But don't be fooled into thinking that they are actually Matter or Energy
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong.
I'll go for : 2: The effect that was recorded was the most minuscule amount of data (equivalent to a handful of pixels on a screen the size of a football field), and could have a thousand different explanations. The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one. That's the joy of astronomy: You can spout any old bollocks, and no-one will live long enough to prove that you're wrong. How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data), but we have to send ships to the Moon, Mars, Saturn, etc? "Hey! We're real smart! We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What? Oh. Well, how should I know how many planets there are in our solar system? That kinda stuff's Hard, man!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Just thought-experimenting. If (as often happens) we represent 'spacetime' as a flat sheet (usually black rubber with white grid lines) and the distortion of spacetime by mass as a large ball sitting on the sheet, we can show the effect of gravity by rolling a smaller ball along the sheet, which will accelerate toward the large ball, and (ignoring friction) collide with or orbit. So far so good. In this model the flat sheet is suspended in 'nothing'. But, what if you 'zoomed out' and the sheet was actually curved? Imagine it is sitting on a massive sphere. If the sphere grows, so the 'universe' will expand. Indeed if the sheet itself were like the skin of a massive rubber ball, then this effect would be observed if the ball was inflated. So what we call 'dark energy' could simply be the inflation of whatever it is that 'supports' the universe. The turtles are sliding down the side of the shell. [^]
PooperPig - Coming Soon
You can create any concept you want: a big sphere or a chicken shaped multiverse. It is just a concept like space time. Physics is not the science that was a thousand years ago. Instead of analyzing the real world, physicists try to "blow our mind" with some superstition theories about space-time. As a programmer, I do not believe them. Variable is not the same as an actual object, it is just a placeholder for a concept related to an actual object, so we can work with it. tl,dr; Too much modern physics is just based on misunderstanding mathematical concepts and representing it as something great.
-
Your brains are not ready. How small of you.
Shut up all of you semi-theortical physicists! Cut the noise. Here's a name sounding like Russian. Let's sit down and listen to the real space man. :rolleyes: Go ahead Mr R. Giskard Reventlov! :D
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
they, and everything else, is expanding so, while the novae are getting further away, they are also getting larger.
I think you might have misunderstood something you read, there. Nothing's getting bigger (well, novae get bigger because they're explosions), it's all just moving apart. It's the universe that's expanding, not the suns, planets, and teaspoons.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Either *something* is out there (and in here!) or Einstein was wrong.
I'll go for : 2: The effect that was recorded was the most minuscule amount of data (equivalent to a handful of pixels on a screen the size of a football field), and could have a thousand different explanations. The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one. That's the joy of astronomy: You can spout any old bollocks, and no-one will live long enough to prove that you're wrong. How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data), but we have to send ships to the Moon, Mars, Saturn, etc? "Hey! We're real smart! We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What? Oh. Well, how should I know how many planets there are in our solar system? That kinda stuff's Hard, man!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
I don't think many people would deny that it could be the wrong one...
Mark_Wallace wrote:
How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data),
Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What?
For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits. Similarly with supernovae - there's a theory, the maths holds together and observations support the theory. sure, they could be caused by aliens' wars, time travelling weebles or bad spaceship drivers - but there's little reason to discount the theory until either a better theory comes along, or observations show the theory to be wrong.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
You can create any concept you want: a big sphere or a chicken shaped multiverse. It is just a concept like space time. Physics is not the science that was a thousand years ago. Instead of analyzing the real world, physicists try to "blow our mind" with some superstition theories about space-time. As a programmer, I do not believe them. Variable is not the same as an actual object, it is just a placeholder for a concept related to an actual object, so we can work with it. tl,dr; Too much modern physics is just based on misunderstanding mathematical concepts and representing it as something great.
Plamen Dragiyski wrote:
It is just a concept like space time.
Well, I'd like to see the mathematics to support a chicken-shaped multiverse!
Plamen Dragiyski wrote:
physicists try to "blow our mind" with some superstition theories about space-time.
Seriously?
Plamen Dragiyski wrote:
As a programmer, I do not believe them.
What? That's like saying "As a programmer I don't believe in God" the two things are unrelated! so are you seriously saying you don't believe in spacetime? Do you not believe that the rate of passage of time varies by the observer? this effect is real, and measurable, and used IRL !
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
The ridiculous fame-grabbing explanation that was chosen is the wrong one.
I don't think many people would deny that it could be the wrong one...
Mark_Wallace wrote:
How is it that they can tell us about the entire construction of stellar systems and the universe, and all the dynamics of supernovae, just by looking at microscopically tiny blobs of light (or radio data),
Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
We've discovered 500 stars with planets by looking at tiny wibbles in 10-pixel-groupings in two photos taken a week apart! ... What?
For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits. Similarly with supernovae - there's a theory, the maths holds together and observations support the theory. sure, they could be caused by aliens' wars, time travelling weebles or bad spaceship drivers - but there's little reason to discount the theory until either a better theory comes along, or observations show the theory to be wrong.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Well (as I'm sure you know) what actually happens is someone formulates a theory and observations support it or otherwise.
Indeed, but what troubles me is that the observations are of such tiny amounts of light/radio waves, that have traveled God knows how far and through God knows what (e.g. if it travels through a tiny patch of blue dust, in the billions of miles between here and its source, it becomes more yellow), so grand assumptions simply cannot be made. But grand observations are made, nonetheless, and compounded with further grand assumptions, then backed up with numbers that are tailored to fit, until we have a model of the universe that makes very little sense, and is constantly being challenged by observations that are "more accurate" because they are backed up by three photons more than the previous observations. And nowhere along the way does anyone admit that it's all guesswork -- they call it "great, new discoveries", rather than admit it's all guesses. We need more data, not more guesses. Guessing is easy, but getting it right requires more than 2000 photons per month.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
For Example, the regular dimming of a star's light together with evidence of a perceived 'wobble' (detected by changing dopler shift) could be caused by something other than a planet orbiting - but these are real, repeatable measurements and the theory fits.
But so would a thousand simpler theories -- i.e. plain ol' boring dust or temperature gradients could far more easily be proven to be the cause of wibbles. But that wouldn't make people famous or get them big research grants, would it? And when a few more quanta of the EMS arrive, which should easily prove that something else is the case, they'll just "massage" their Grand Unprovable Theories to make them fit the new data.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
