• Quick Shot Challenge: What’s the dumbest shooting myth you’ve heard?

    Drop it in the replies for the chance to win a free shirt!

    Join the contest

Movie Theater Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred_C_Dobbs</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://abstrusegoose.com/337 </div></div>
You won't catch me "jacking in" until Micro$loth is out of the software bidness. </div></div>

Actully the current boogeyman is Google, Microsoft is already at the point of post relevance. </div></div>
You'll get no argument from me.
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">snip
My accomplished babblosity stems from the rather embarrassing fact that of you beat a dunce repeately over the head with the same thing often enough, some of it is bound to stick.
snip

</div></div>

This. What he said. I have been applying this principle to my own tattered intellect for 46 years, and explains why a middle-aged dnorf is sitting in a chemistry classroom with people who are young enough to be his children.

But I AM learning. The knowledge, under immense pressure, is leaking in. Hopefully in a couple of years I'll have acquired enough to teach 180 younger learners a week how things work on and around this planet.
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boltstop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">snip
My accomplished babblosity stems from the rather embarrassing fact that of you beat a dunce repeately over the head with the same thing often enough, some of it is bound to stick.
snip

</div></div>

This. What he said. I have been applying this principle to my own tattered intellect for 46 years, and explains why a middle-aged dnorf is sitting in a chemistry classroom with people who are young enough to be his children.

But I AM learning. The knowledge, under immense pressure, is leaking in. Hopefully in a couple of years I'll have acquired enough to teach 180 younger learners a week how things work on and around this planet. </div></div>

There's nothing better for your brain than to do this. It doesn't matter how old you are you stay young by pushing yourself to learn way to be.
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<span style="font-weight: bold">Dark Energy Is Driving Universe Apart: NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer Finds Dark Energy Repulsive
</span>
ScienceDaily (May 19, 2011) — A five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies, stretching back seven billion years in cosmic time, has led to one of the best independent confirmations that dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds.

The survey used data from NASA's space-based Galaxy Evolution Explorer and the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Siding Spring Mountain in Australia.

The findings offer new support for the favored theory of how dark energy works -- as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and propelling its runaway expansion. They contradict an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory, with which the new survey results are not consistent, Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers describing the results that appeared in recent issues of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

Dark energy is thought to dominate our universe, making up about 74 percent of it. Dark matter, a slightly less mysterious substance, accounts for 22 percent. So-called normal matter, anything with atoms, or the stuff that makes up living creatures, planets and stars, is only approximately four percent of the cosmos.

The idea of dark energy was proposed during the previous decade, based on studies of distant exploding stars called supernovae. Supernovae emit constant, measurable light, making them so-called "standard candles," which allows calculation of their distance from Earth. Observations revealed dark energy was flinging the objects out at accelerating speeds.

The new survey provides two separate methods for independently checking these results. This is the first time astronomers performed these checks across the whole cosmic timespan dominated by dark energy. Astronomers began by assembling the largest three-dimensional map of galaxies in the distant universe, spotted by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer.

"The Galaxy Evolution Explorer helped identify bright, young galaxies, which are ideal for this type of study," said Christopher Martin, principal investigator for the mission at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. "It provided the scaffolding for this enormous 3-D map."

The team acquired detailed information about the light for each galaxy using the Anglo-Australian Telescope and studied the pattern of distance between them. Sound waves from the very early universe left imprints in the patterns of galaxies, causing pairs of galaxies to be separated by approximately 500 million light-years.

Blake and his colleagues used this "standard ruler" to determine the distance from the galaxy pairs to Earth. As with the supernovae studies, this distance data was combined with information about the speeds the pairs are moving away from us, revealing, yet again, the fabric of space is stretching apart faster and faster.

The team also used the galaxy map to study how clusters of galaxies grow over time like cities, eventually containing many thousands of galaxies. The clusters attract new galaxies through gravity, but dark energy tugs the clusters apart. It slows down the process, allowing scientists to measure dark energy's repulsive force.

"Observations by astronomers over the last 15 years have produced one of the most startling discoveries in physical science; the expansion of the universe, triggered by the big bang, is speeding up," said Jon Morse, astrophysics division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Using entirely independent methods, data from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer have helped increase our confidence in the existence of dark energy."
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

This is a big deal because this team, here in NZ I might add, confirmed the cosmological constant based on measuring distances and velocities of galaxies instead of using type 1a supernovae as has been done in the past. So once again predictions match the models, which means our current energy density values for baryons, dark matter & energy are accurate.
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Oh, man...; now I gotta go beat my head some more...

...seems like this stuff never ends...

...I guess the good news is, nobody lives forever, me included...
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Having read this twice; I retain my reservations. The article says some bright folks proved something, but I'm still trying to figure out the what and the how of it. I'm trying very hard not to be obtuse or biased, I'm just not taking away anything that looks like concrete proof.

Analogies are drawn between photons and radiation pressure within stars, and as yet undetected, unobserved, existence unproven, 'pressures' from at forces and masses that are as yet no more tangible than Phlogiston was centuries ago.

The one thing we can be certain about in the field of physics is that the majority of folks in the field will <span style="font-style: italic">always</span> agree that somebody got it right; until they later nearly universally agree, they got it wrong.

Nice try, but no dice, we move on...

I see this initiative as just another example of what's gone before.

As far as I'm concerned the existence of black anything in the field of physics is simply a matter of speculation with a lot of (very honestly) highly farfetched theories to support it. At best, the existence of black matter and black energy are simply mildly plausible alternative explanations for a phenomenon we can't, as yet, explain conclusively. Simply put, nobody knows, and some folks think they have an explanation, and other folks think they have a different explanation, and others hold a yet differnt theory. Odds favor none of them being anything but partially, possibly right.

The idea that we have conclusive proof of these theories is interesting, but IMHO, speculative, unproven, and not likely to be proven conclusively in any of our lifetimes. Anything 'better' than that remains, IMHO, wishful thinking.

The idea that the universe is expanding is observable and may also be provable, as long as one assumes that dopplering is the sole possible means to explain red shift. The assumption is that changes in observable appearances can be interpolated to fit a model. In this way, an explanation is put forth to declare and explain expansion, but I reserve complete acceptance of this simply in the light of a lack of a currently viable alternative.

That the universe may continue to expand, or may fall back in on itself, also fits this model.

That the expansion is accelerating does no fit this model, and there is no, repeat no, tangible evidence to explain why. Theories, yes. New models, yes. Supporting evidence beyond a coincidental correlation between projections and a set of data points, no.

Michael Crichton remarked that the scientific community is preconfigured to find what the funders of projects are looking to prove. It is also preconfigured not to look for what nobody's willing to fund. That's bias. It exists; and right now, I see very little effort to alter it by even a whit.

Greg
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

You have to take what Crichton says with a grain of salt. It's a common misconception that science is about "not rocking the boat", about coming to the conclusions that were expected. Nothing can be farther from the truth, especially considering that the Dark Energy puzzle showed up in the first place because two independent teams reached the same conclusion, that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating, which was the opposite of what they expected. That's how you win a Nobel prize.

You're looking for 100% certainty in proof, but as any scientist will tell you - it's not about proof, it's about the best explanation/model that fits the evidence. And as of now, many of the key concepts in science are exactly that. No, we can't journey to the core of a star to physically see and measure fusion, but we know it's happening with reasonable certainty based on the many independent observations and models that lead up to it.

The same is true with Dark Energy. There still isn't a complete model, but lots of reasonable speculation and some important hints that come from General Relativity. In hindsight, it's important to note that Einstein in a roundabout way predicted Dark Energy as a scalar energy value persistent throughout space time - ie the Cosmological Constant.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can be skeptical all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to point to aspects of physics that haven't been 100% proven and say it's all misunderstood speculation and hocus pocus. There are levels of validity and just because something isn't 100% understood, it can be very well supported by evidence and the model can make predictions that prove accurate. That is not the same as just speculation.
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I think that's a matter of interpretation. You have to assume that whenever a scientist is explaining something, it's based on the best, current understanding, which may be 99.999999% certainty. Cosmologists know the limits of their knowledge on Dark Matter and Dark Energy, so they speculate often and are the first to say "we don't know." At the same time, there are things they can say "we know with a reasonable amount of certainty", things like the expansion of the Universe, it's acceleration and the existence of non-baryonic mass. From there the models and theories to explain the observations and data are where the debate begins and no one is operating at a high level of certainty yet. Biology is a different story though
wink.gif
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I had responded, but on reflection, I really don't want to continue with this topic. I just get weary with the back and forth. I really don't know enough about this stuff to be arguing specific points anyway.

Greg
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

We don' need no stinkin' dark matter! (Dark energy next?)

<span style="font-size: 14pt">Aussie student finds universe's 'missing mass'</span>

SYDNEY (AFP) – A 22-year-old Australian university student has solved a problem which has puzzled astrophysicists for decades, discovering part of the so-called "missing mass" of the universe during her summer break.

Undergraduate Amelia Fraser-McKelvie made the breakthrough during a holiday internship with a team at Monash University's School of Physics, locating the mystery material within vast structures called "filaments of galaxies".

Monash astrophysicist Dr Kevin Pimbblet explained that scientists had previously detected matter that was present in the early history of the universe but that could not now be located.

"There is missing mass, ordinary mass not dark mass ... It's missing to the present day," Pimbblet told AFP.

"We don't know where it went. Now we do know where it went because that's what Amelia found."

Fraser-McKelvie, an aerospace engineering and science student, was able to confirm after a targeted X-ray search for the mystery mass that it had moved to the "filaments of galaxies", which stretch across enormous expanses of space.

Pimbblet's earlier work had suggested the filaments as a possible location for the "missing" matter, thought to be low in density but high in temperature.

Pimbblet said astrophysicists had known about the "missing" mass for the past two decades, but the technology needed to pinpoint its location had only become available in recent years.

He said the discovery could drive the construction of new telescopes designed to specifically study the mass.

Pimbblet admitted the discovery was primarily academic, but he said previous physics research had led to the development of diverse other technologies.

"Whenever I speak to people who have influence, politicians and so on, they sometimes ask me 'Why should I invest in physics pure research?'. And I sometimes say to them: 'Do you use a mobile phone? Some of that technology came about by black hole research'.

"The pure research has knock-on effects to the whole society which are sometimes difficult to anticipate."
 
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Color me skeptical. They've been through this one before, including missing mass from gas, dust, planetary bodies, etc. Adding it all up, it's still not enough to account for what's observed and modeled.