If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   News: Incredibly distant galaxy discovered. F'arc: It shouldn't exist   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, Gravitational Lens, galaxy clusters, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, apparent size, event horizon, Anthony Gonzalez, dark matter, light-years  
•       •       •

7645 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Jun 2012 at 1:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 07:53:11 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: markie_farkie: incendi: blinded by the light

Don't get me all revved up like a douche..

Isn't the word in the song actually "deuce"? "Deuce" was a common term at the time of Springsteen's youth for a kind of sporty car. Despite how it sounds when he sings it -- and let's be honest, he munges a LOT of words when he sings -- I find it much easier to believe that the Boss is talking about revving a car than a femine hygiene product.


Pretty sure that was Manford Mann. The beach boys had a song named "My little deuce coupe".
 
2012-06-27 07:53:35 PM

simplicimus: ArcadianRefugee: I've always liked it when so-called scientists say "it shouldn't be!" rather than "well, shiat, our math is obviously wrong or incomplete in some way".

I like it when a workaround is hypothesized (dark matter, dark energy, gravitons) and then proof is considered found.
/unfettered by any knowledge of physics, I am free to make such pronouncements.


Fixed

You don't need knowledge specifically of physics to understand that people with years of schooling in it are more likely to understand it than other people, and that you don't need to understand it yourself to respect their expertise. All you need is knowledge of how science works.
 
2012-06-27 08:01:48 PM
God I love Science.

/even darker matter?
 
2012-06-27 08:30:00 PM

jigger: It's also impossible that it's noise in the CCD. Impossible.


It shows up on two different images, so you are correct. Also, scientists are not farking morons and know how to make sure it's not noise. We have entire books devoted to that subject.
 
2012-06-27 09:55:40 PM

Theory Of Null: [blogs.discovermagazine.com image 610x429]
[img411.imageshack.us image 588x419]
img411.imageshack.us
I see a man with a potato chip or a joint.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Some kind of 'Female Single Lawyer' scenario maybe...
 
2012-06-27 10:11:16 PM

Grither: er, plus an F.


Actually it would be "a" F not "an"
 
2012-06-27 10:59:27 PM

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: Grither: er, plus an F.

Actually it would be "a" F not "an"


No, he had it right. "A"/"an" is determined by the following sound if the phrase was spoken; the "n" in "an" allows a smoother transition between similar vowel sounds when speaking. The sound a letter represents and the sound that starts the pronunciation of a letter aren't always the same, like in the case of F. F represents a "ffff" sound in a word, but when saying the letter F you start with a vowel sound ("eh-ffff").
 
2012-06-27 11:10:07 PM

incendi: Sometimes I wonder if multiple bits of the universe big banged all at once, but the other banged bits are still outside the visible limits of our bits, and the unexplained accelerating expansion of our bit is caused by the gravitational pull of the other bits as they start to get closer or overlap around the edges. Maybe one day we'll all be blinded by the light of another big bang finally reaching us.

/this conjecture not supported by any significant knowledge or critical thinking on my part.


There's a bit of an academic argument in astronomy whether "The Universe" is all of the galaxies that we can see, or all of the galaxies that possibly exist. The argument is considered academic, because according to Einsteinian principles, the existence of galaxies that are so far away that their earliest rays of light hasn't yet reached us is immaterial to our universe as we know it - since we will never discover them.
 
2012-06-28 12:18:27 AM
FTFA:
I expect we'll be hearing from people who think Big Bang cosmology itself is wrong - and I'll be clear: it isn't. Those people are.

Mmmkay. Let me see if I understand this correctly. First, there was nothing. Then, some time later, from nothing came something. Okay.

/I'll be clear
//you and your ilk are buffoons
 
2012-06-28 03:41:48 AM

starsrift: There's a bit of an academic argument in astronomy whether "The Universe" is all of the galaxies that we can see, or all of the galaxies that possibly exist. The argument is considered academic, because according to Einsteinian principles, the existence of galaxies that are so far away that their earliest rays of light hasn't yet reached us is immaterial to our universe as we know it - since we will never discover them.


If I remember my Lawrence Krauss, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating and eventually it will come to a point where it will exceed the speed of light, and then distant objects will start to blink out of observable existence as their light is expanded away from us.

I've speculated that who's to say that isn't already happening. The Universe may be bigger and older than 13.72 billion years, but that's as far back as we can see. The age of the Universe will thus appear to shrink as it ages, but I guess we won't be able to tell for another 100 million years or so.
 
2012-06-28 08:37:50 AM

Ishkur: starsrift: There's a bit of an academic argument in astronomy whether "The Universe" is all of the galaxies that we can see, or all of the galaxies that possibly exist. The argument is considered academic, because according to Einsteinian principles, the existence of galaxies that are so far away that their earliest rays of light hasn't yet reached us is immaterial to our universe as we know it - since we will never discover them.

If I remember my Lawrence Krauss, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating and eventually it will come to a point where it will exceed the speed of light, and then distant objects will start to blink out of observable existence as their light is expanded away from us.

I've speculated that who's to say that isn't already happening. The Universe may be bigger and older than 13.72 billion years, but that's as far back as we can see. The age of the Universe will thus appear to shrink as it ages, but I guess we won't be able to tell for another 100 million years or so.


I don't think that'll be a problem until everything outside the Milky Way has been red shifted out of sight. An observer from the Milky Way will no longer be able to deduce that the universe is expanding because it looks like nothing is out there. Flipping that statement, since we can still see outside galaxies and their redshifts we can deduce the age of the universe.
 
2012-06-28 09:01:39 AM

Tube: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: Grither: er, plus an F.

Actually it would be "a" F not "an"

No, he had it right. "A"/"an" is determined by the following sound if the phrase was spoken; the "n" in "an" allows a smoother transition between similar vowel sounds when speaking. The sound a letter represents and the sound that starts the pronunciation of a letter aren't always the same, like in the case of F. F represents a "ffff" sound in a word, but when saying the letter F you start with a vowel sound ("eh-ffff").


Cor-rect. This is exactly how I was taught to use a/an, and still do. I don't feel it's incorrect to use the different non-spoken convention (which I'm not even sure is taught anywhere, but I can understand why people will do it), but it's certainly not incorrect to use the spoken convention.

For some reason, this reminds me of the silly habit a lot of poor writers have of using commas as 'pause' notions instead of logical separators. ("O no, the writer didn't tell me when to pause while speaking by inserting extraneous commas! What shall I do? How can I possibly figure it out?") The habit seems to be increasing in some areas (such as semi-pro) blogs where I find it harder to tune out, and so I'm starting to find it more distracting and irritating.
 
2012-06-28 09:33:00 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: markie_farkie: incendi: blinded by the light

Don't get me all revved up like a douche..

Isn't the word in the song actually "deuce"? "Deuce" was a common term at the time of Springsteen's youth for a kind of sporty car. Despite how it sounds when he sings it -- and let's be honest, he munges a LOT of words when he sings -- I find it much easier to believe that the Boss is talking about revving a car than a femine hygiene product.


revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night...

Little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
Little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got

Well I'm not braggin babe so don't put me down
But I've got the fastest set of wheels in town
When something comes up to me he don't even try
Cause if I had a set of wings man I know she could fly
She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
(My little deuce coupe)
(You don't know what I got)
Just a little deuce coupe with a flat head mill
But she'll walk a thunderburn like (she's) standin still
She's ported and relieved and she's stroked and bored.
She`ll do a hundred and forty with the top end floored
She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
(My little deuce coupe)
(You don't know what I got)

She's got a competition clutch with the four on the floor
And she purrs like a kitten till the lake pipes roar
And if that aint enough to make you flip your lid
There's one more thing, I got the pink slip daddy

And comin off the line when the light turns green
Well she blows em outta the water like you never seen
I get pushed out of shape and it's hard to steer
When I get rubber in all four gears

She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
(My little deuce coupe)
(You don't know what I got)
She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
(My little deuce coupe)
(You don't know what I got)
She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
 
2012-06-28 09:37:19 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: For some reason, this reminds me of the silly habit a lot of poor writers have of using commas as 'pause' notions instead of logical separators. ("O no, the writer didn't tell me when to pause while speaking by inserting extraneous commas! What shall I do? How can I possibly figure it out?") The habit seems to be increasing in some areas (such as semi-pro) blogs where I find it harder to tune out, and so I'm starting to find it more distracting and irritating.


I dislike illogical parenthesis more.

It`s increasing in some areas blogs where you find it? How distracting and irritating.
 
2012-06-28 09:45:54 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
I expect we'll be hearing from people who think Big Bang cosmology itself is wrong - and I'll be clear: it isn't. Those people are.

Mmmkay. Let me see if I understand this correctly. First, there was nothing. Then, some time later, from nothing came something. Okay.

/I'll be clear
//you and your ilk are buffoons


Except that that's not the theory, only what you're hearing. We don't know the whole story. What we do know is that there's a lot of stuff here now, and from carefully studying it, the most rational explanation so far is that it all came from the same place a long, long time ago. Exactly how is not yet determined, though there are some working ideas that may bear fruit. Why is a matter outside the realm of science, so there's plenty of room left for philosophers.

And nutty as it may sound to you, this still makes a good deal more sense than ancient nomadic fables. If for no other reason than that it's based on actual observed and verifiable evidence. Are there errors in it? Almost certainly. But the thing that's distinct about science is that over time, as it gathers evidence that appears to confound existing theories, it can and will change them, to accommodate the new evidence. That's actually the point of TFA, explicitly stated in the last paragraph. Religion has proven remarkably poorer at this, in ways that can negatively impact humanity as a whole. Using science, Galileo proved that the earth must go about the Sun -- not the other way around, as had been taught for many years. The Church persecuted him for his heresy -- even though he was provably right. The vacuum was discovered several times in Western history, but not formally accepted until the Church finally decided that it didn't offend theology. Were it not for this kind of interference from powerful ignorant people, we would be much further along scientifically than we are now. So if you demand that I take sides, it's no question for me.

Like a lot of lay people, the Church misunderstood what scientists were trying to say when they described the vacuum. They thought it described "nothing," because their limited understanding of the natural world allowed them to make no other sense of it, and like a of lay people they simply distrusted these men who seemed to see and grasp things they could not perceive. (The germ theory was early resisted for the same reason: It didn't make any logical sense to many people that there could be many tiny 'animals' so small they could not be seen or felt at all, so those bonehead scientists must be wrong, or lying.)

The 'nothing' you snidely refer to as the point of origin of the universe is nothing only insomuch as its nature confounds everyday understands of 'stuff,' and it may well have not been an actual object. Specifically, the universe we know may an isolated effect, as much as a 'thing' it itself. It obviously must have a rational origin, but that doesn't mean that it needs to make sense to lay people -- a great deal of science that's been firmly established is very difficult to explain to people without the requisite schooling, the same as advanced trade techniques are to apprentices or non-tradesmen. (But the apprentice accepts the master's wisdom all the same, and I accept my mechanic's word without arguing over things I don't fully understand, instead of calling him names.)

It's currently speculated by many experts that the universe is a multidimentional reaction to the collision of two 'branes' (short for membranes), a hypothetical multidimensional object well beyond our perception or current ability to detect or measure. You can think of it this way: If you take two sheets of paper and slide them across a flat surface at each other, when they connect there will be a third-dimensional reaction: One or both of them will start to bend, fold, and crumple. We think that kind of event may, in much greater multidimensional framework, be how the universe started. Or the explanation could turn out to be even weirder and more amazing than that. Right now, we can only say for certain that it exists and follows a set of laws we call physics. So any explanation for its origin must be consistent with those laws. Magical solutions to the puzzle have always been popular, but don't satisfy mathematical requirements.

blog.stackoverflow.com
 
2012-06-28 09:49:23 AM

Ishkur: starsrift: There's a bit of an academic argument in astronomy whether "The Universe" is all of the galaxies that we can see, or all of the galaxies that possibly exist. The argument is considered academic, because according to Einsteinian principles, the existence of galaxies that are so far away that their earliest rays of light hasn't yet reached us is immaterial to our universe as we know it - since we will never discover them.

If I remember my Lawrence Krauss, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating and eventually it will come to a point where it will exceed the speed of light, and then distant objects will start to blink out of observable existence as their light is expanded away from us.

I've speculated that who's to say that isn't already happening. The Universe may be bigger and older than 13.72 billion years, but that's as far back as we can see. The age of the Universe will thus appear to shrink as it ages, but I guess we won't be able to tell for another 100 million years or so.


My own hope is that we'll learn enough more about the expansion rate to estimate when it would have been zero, which might give us an even more accurate estimate of the age of the universe. But yes, I've also considered that the universe might be far bigger and older than our observations are currently able to suggest right now. To my knowledge, there's currently no way to be confident that it couldn't be.
 
2012-06-28 09:54:45 AM

dready zim: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: For some reason, this reminds me of the silly habit a lot of poor writers have of using commas as 'pause' notions instead of logical separators. ("O no, the writer didn't tell me when to pause while speaking by inserting extraneous commas! What shall I do? How can I possibly figure it out?") The habit seems to be increasing in some areas (such as semi-pro) blogs where I find it harder to tune out, and so I'm starting to find it more distracting and irritating.

I dislike illogical parenthesis more.

It`s increasing in some areas blogs where you find it? How distracting and irritating.


You used the singular form instead of the plural, as you surely intended. (Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.) Boy, don't you HATE it when pedants point out minor errors in your remarks, completely overlooking your main points?
 
2012-06-28 11:02:28 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: (The germ theory was early resisted for the same reason: It didn't make any logical sense to many people that there could be many tiny 'animals' so small they could not be seen or felt at all, so those bonehead scientists must be wrong, or lying.)


That is how I feel about magnets, man. Those scientists are always lying, and it just makes me pissed.
 
Displayed 18 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report