Use of the word 'bitch' among Furrae

[Tapewolf]

"Steady-State" versus "Big Bang" theories are fun, but the Big Bang appears to have overthrown all opponents. Apparently due to people liking the idea of things blowing up...

It has been observed that the cosmology theory-of-the-day often reflects the political climate and regime.  I can't remember the complete list of examples given, but it went something like this:

* Ancient Greeks (?) decide the Universe is eternal
* (oppressive regime) decides Universe is finite
* (??) decides Universe is eternal (again)
* Dark ages: the doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo and the general concept that God made the Universe and He will eventually come along and un-make it
* 1900s : Steady-state theory
* Cold war : Big Bang theory
* Cold war ends : Cracks start to form in Big Bang

I'm fairly sure the Bang-Crunch thing has kind of faltered.  It's been a long time since I've dealt with this kind of cosmology, but IIRC there were three basic 'fates' : Closed, Flat and Open.  Closed is where the expansion velocity is small enough that it collapses again, Flat is where it is completely in balance, and Open is where it is large enough that it keeps on expanding.  IIRC it was determined that we appear to have a Flat universe.

As I say, it's been a while, but I'm not convinced of the Big Bang theory myself.. it seems to have too many hacks and bodges to make it work.

[Alondro]

*Charles nods*  Beat me to it there.  Gravity isn't the main influence behind the shape of the universe.  Space itself is expanding, and with a flat universe it will do so forever.  But that brings up the interesting questions of how fast is it expanding and what exactly is it expanding into?  If it is truly expanding into absolutely nothing, a region devoid of even our quantum principles, there's no way to ever know the answers because we can only measure by referencing our universe!  That's like trying to measure the speed a spacecraft is traveling while being sealed inside said spacecraft.  We have no relative measure if everything outside is nothingness.  But, that need not be true, since we can't see beyond the 'edge'.  It could be that our current universe is in fact expanding into a previous one that simply expanded so much as to become stretched to the point where it had nearly become a pure vacuum.  In that case, we may be the Nth universe in existence, in a string of endless expansions.  *sighs*  I need to be immortal... so much universe, so little time.   

[xHaZxMaTx]

I like to think there are multiple universes/dimensions each containing their own laws of physics and the whole thing about gravity being a relatively weak force due to it being 'shared' throught several dimensions.  It all makes you think, which is good.  It's fun to think what is beyond the universe, if their are other universes, or just nothing.  (Man I could ramble on and on about this suff, it's just so intruiging.)  Another fun thing to think about is that the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.  Which brings up the question of how fast are we moving through time and space?  How could we check?  Is there anyone stationary object in the universe(s) that we could measure raltive speed to?  Or perhaps the whole universe is moving...  Ow, my brain hurts.

[ITOS]

Another fun thing to think about is that the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.  Which brings up the question of how fast are we moving through time and space?

Lightspeed, that is why Photons don't age.

Is there anyone stationary object in the universe(s) that we could measure raltive speed to?

Thanks to Einstein there is no way of telling what is moving and what is standing still.

[xHaZxMaTx]

It really wouldn't matter, though, because if everything were maving at near the speed of light, whereas we would be moving through time very slowly, and suddenly nearly stopped, in which case we would all be moving through time extremely quickly, we wouldn't tell because it's all relative.

[ITOS]

It really wouldn't matter, though, because if everything were maving at near the speed of light, whereas we would be moving through time very slowly, and suddenly nearly stopped, in which case we would all be moving through time extremely quickly, we wouldn't tell because it's all relative.

We can get close by going to the extremes... I'm not so sure though, was some time since I read this but at 0 K there is no movement. At least no changes in movement, I think... err... 

[xHaZxMaTx]

That would make a lot more sense if I knew what 0 K was.

[ITOS]

That would make a lot more sense if I knew what 0 K was.

Absolute zero , 0 kelvin, no heat at all.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Ohhhh, ok, I get it.  Well, it's the molecules within the object that aren't moving relative to the object itself.  However, the object could still move through a vacuum freely.

[Zedd]

Well thanks for clearing that all up peoples

[Tapewolf]

Gah, I should have known that my sign-off comment would be taken literally.
It's actually an obscure song by Bill Nelson from 1980.  If I wanted to know if people dreamed in colour I would probably have asked the APF.

I don't know if anyone cares, or even if I'm supposed to do this, but I've just found the video for 'Do you dream in colour?' on YouTube.  I've been looking for this for about 22 years.
The video was shot entirely on 8mm in his house, and it's just as freaky and cool as I remember - if not more so.

Since I'm not sure if posting a link to incredibly rare copyrighted film is considered virtuous in this forum, I'll just give directions:
Search for 'Bill Nelson' on YouTube.  Currently DYDIC is about the third one down.

Enjoy.

[Sid]

I'm almost certain that this thread has had the most awesome off-topic branches ever (in the shortest time possible). Gonna check out the video once I'm done studying today's part, it sure sounds interesting

[xHaZxMaTx]

I vote this thread be reanamed 'The Abstract Theories Thread.'

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

They're not abstract enough.

I mean, has anyone brought up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-)

[xHaZxMaTx]

That's just plain ridiculous.

[bill]

Does anyone know if Lucas Oil exists? I see them sponsoring everything there is to sponsor in the lesser motorsports world, but have yet to see an actual product by them in any store.

[xHaZxMaTx]

http://www.lucasoil.com/

[Vidar]

They're not abstract enough.

I mean, has anyone brought up The Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-)

RAMEN, BROTHER!

[BlueTiger]

Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.



I hate you clip! GO AWAY!!!!

*Ahem* Anyway.

On the subject of dreams, I'm afraid I've never remembered any of mine but one. It was a nightmare in which I figured out I was dreaming and, after doing some running from the monster I still couldn't do anything about, I got myself to wake up. I don't remember there being any color at all, but the dream did look like an old horror film to me, so maybe that's why the dream seemed black and white....

Oh and:

Hi! It's me first post! Joy!

[Shakal]

Back on the subject of the expanding universe, something that was discovered around a decade or so ago that kind of threw a lot of things on their side, in terms of extreme cosmology (edge of known space/beginning of time type cosmology) has to do with those farflung quasars cosmologists like to look at. Everyone know they're flying off in 'outbound' directions, due to the universe expanding, but the whole open/flat/closed debate came up over how fast that expansion would slow down.

The problem is, the expansion actually ISN'T slowing down. It's speeding up.

Yes, the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up over time. Yes, the current models of gravity and other cosmic forces indicate it should be slowing down. No, no one (to my knowledge) has proposed a working reasonable theory of why. Either the current models and theories of gravity are fundamentally wrong in some way (my opinion rests here), or there's something else coming into play that has never been detected or identified before.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

... or there's something wrong with the measurements. Not that that's likely.

Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"

What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)

... including the people who noted the discrepancy in the first place.

[Tapewolf]

Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"

What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)

How do we know it is redshift?  I always liked the theory that something is happening to the starlight over those distances causing it to 'decay' towards red.  Blue light after all has both higher requencies and higher energy quanta.. which should make it the first to go, IMHO.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Indeed. Assumptions, see? Even I, while making a post about not making assumptions, fell into that one. :-)

There's an implicit red shift equals movement assumption, there, which is a reasonable assumption since we can't go look... but does it fit the *rest* of what we can see? Not that well. So what other assumption might we need to make to make it fit better? Nobody really knows. All we can say is, well, we think it's all expanding, and here's why, but we can't prove it, and we're trying to come up with a better explanation...

[Vidar]

Basic assumptions are at question, unfortunately - "how did we get to this place where what we think is happening is obviously not what's happening? Is it how we're looking? Is it how we're calculating from what we see (there's a red shift) to what we think is going on (there's acceleration) and how much of that is going on (what's the numerical value?) and how does that affect the calculations?"

What escapes many is that there is this comparitively simple set of observations - red shift in this quasar, red shift in another direction in that one, all moving away from us - and a large structure of calculations and guesswork based on those... Any of the numbers involved might be wrong, which is why it's been ten years someone's be trying to figure out what they did wrong :-)

How do we know it is redshift? I always liked the theory that something is happening to the starlight over those distances causing it to 'decay' towards red. Blue light after all has both higher requencies and higher energy quanta.. which should make it the first to go, IMHO.

Even if your 'decaying light' theory is correct, the light we recieve from very distant stars is shifting more to the red end of the spectrum.
In the current theory of "redshifting" this means that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
In your theory the universe would still be expanding. Measuring if the expansion is accelerating or not would be problematic, because we don't know the rate at which light would decay.

Scientists use the redshift theory, becuase , for now, there is no reason to believe that light actually decay. I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics wouldn't allow a quanta of light decay.
Of course, quantum mechanics could very well be wrong.
Scientists know that either Einsteinien physics or quantum mechanics is wrong: they're mutually exclusive. Scientists continue to use them, because they most accurately mimic the observed behaviour of the universe.

Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Actually... What they measure is not actually the light frequencies, but the frequency shift of the spike that hydrogen makes when it burns. And sodium, carbon, and all the other popular elements that you find making light in a sun.

So, when you burn hydrogen, you get a particular pattern of spikes. What they measure is how far you have to shift that pattern to make it match a "lab" pattern. Which is interesting, but not terribly useful in the sort of vague hand-waving argumentative discussions we're having here :-)

[Shakal]

Scientists know that either Einsteinian physics or quantum mechanics is wrong: they're mutually exclusive. Scientists continue to use them, because they most accurately mimic the observed behaviour of the universe.

I won't claim to be a master of either, but I frankly don't see what problem there might be between quantum physics and Einsteinian physics. This only somewhat sticky point is gravity itself (Quantum Physics keeps trying to create "graviton" particles, so that there's a particle carrying the gravitic force... but this makes no sense, as such particles would have to travel faster then light (escape black holes), which isn't allowed to happen.). As I said, I think the problem is a basic misunderstanding of gravity. We've got a fairly good grip how it acts and measures on the small scale (astronomically speaking, within a solar system), but beyond that we run into bigger and bigger problems (the galaxy's gravity is wrong for how fast it's moving, the local group should be collapsing together eventually but isn't, the furthest galaxies seem to be being repulsed instead of attracted, etc).

Frankly, I think the problem is gravity is NOT a quantum force. It is NOT carried by a particle, and frankly isn't a "force" between objects at all. Think about it, a 9.8 m/s acceleration is felt any other time, except for gravity. Astranaughts in orbit report feeling no force on their body at all, despite the fact that they're STILL being pulled by gravity at almost the same rate as someone at sea level on the earth. Gravity travels faster then light, in fact appears to travel instantaneously. No material object, quanta or other, is allowed to do that I think that gravity is an interaction between matter and space itself, compressing the space around the mass, and thus stretching the rest of space time. That would allow for the instant propagation, and would also explain the near and far reactions of matter. Close things, both compressing the space around them, APPEAR to move closer, though neither one actually moves within space (hence why there is no feeling of acceleration, you're not truly moving). Things that are far away aren't affected very much by the pulling of space, but the same action stretches the space between them, making it seem that they are moving away. The galaxy mass issue is still present, but most of the other issues are actually explained by this.

[BlueTiger]

Um... yeah...brother... Don't go eating any noodles now, it could be the master.

The Clip guy wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at me. Thus the following sentance:

I hate you clip! GO AWAY!!!!

Sorry to inturupt the very good conversation you had going, just thought I'd clarify.

[bill]

I'd like to say that this is the worst off-topic thread that I've ever seen, but we just topped this at TBK.  A 14 page thread on the Middle East situation currently somehow turned into an Indianapolis Racing League rant/faux-roleplay.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Oh, I'm sure we've done worse at Nice... Haven't we? :-)

[Tiger_T]

Yes. *remembers the random insanity thread*
How many pages was it again? Eightysomething?