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.

(Berkeley Lab)   If you've been lying awake at night wondering if Earth is passing through walls of dark matter or dark energy into different domains of space, don't worry - scientists are every bit as wacko as you are   (newscenter.lbl.gov) divider line 78
    More: Strange, dark matter, dark energy, mass-energy, Earth, magnetometers, physics, speeds, Department of Physics  
•       •       •

3166 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Jan 2013 at 8:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 05:32:57 PM  
They're not wacko. Their mothers had them tested
 
2013-01-07 07:05:37 PM  

ArkAngel: They're not wacko. Their mothers had them tested


upload.wikimedia.org
understands...
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 07:58:41 PM  
When I was in school the cool experiments were looking for monopoles, not domain walls.
 
2013-01-07 08:19:15 PM  
I can't recall the name of the SF short story, but it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it. During one of these passages thru a "boosted" phase, one newly minted genius builds a rocket and flies out to scout ahead of Earth to find the boundary. He flies around until he feels stupider, then the autopilot reverses course and takes him back to where he was smarter. Thus he maps out what waits ahead for Earth.

The nagging part of this story is I forgot the ending, though I suspect it was that we were doomed to near-chimp-like intellect for some time to come if we stayed anchored to the planet and never left.

(Looks over at Q.A., arches eyebrow)


Anybody remember the title or author of this story?
 
2013-01-07 08:28:07 PM  
Any Pie Left : Yes, I remember that as well. I think the cows got smart and didn't like being food.

http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Wave-Poul-Anderson/dp/0345218892/ref=cm_c r _pr_pb_t
 
2013-01-07 08:28:15 PM  
I hate when I see a term like "domain wall" in a story, think "oh cool", then hit Wikipedia for more info only to be thumped in the head with a bunch of mathematical gobbledygook like "topological solitions" and "discrete symmetry"...

Any Pie Left: Anybody remember the title or author of this story?


No, but it reminds me of this.
 
2013-01-07 08:29:47 PM  

Any Pie Left: I can't recall the name of the SF short story, but it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it. During one of these passages thru a "boosted" phase, one newly minted genius builds a rocket and flies out to scout ahead of Earth to find the boundary. He flies around until he feels stupider, then the autopilot reverses course and takes him back to where he was smarter. Thus he maps out what waits ahead for Earth.

The nagging part of this story is I forgot the ending, though I suspect it was that we were doomed to near-chimp-like intellect for some time to come if we stayed anchored to the planet and never left.

(Looks over at Q.A., arches eyebrow)


Anybody remember the title or author of this story?



I believe it was called "Brain wave", by Poul Anderson.

Could be wrong about the author, but I remember the story.
 
2013-01-07 08:33:28 PM  
IIRC, the ending of Brain Wave had all the enhanced-intellect humans leaving Earth for good, with the brain-damaged and congenitally stupid staying behind to try and survive in a world with sentient animals.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 08:48:46 PM  
it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it

Similar concepts, not the story you are looking for, in

The Cosmic Rape by Theodore Sturgeon
A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge
 
2013-01-07 08:50:43 PM  

ZAZ: it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it

Similar concepts, not the story you are looking for, in

The Cosmic Rape by Theodore Sturgeon
A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge


I'm getting a very Vinge vibe from this article as well.
 
2013-01-07 09:00:23 PM  

Wenchmaster: Any Pie Left: I can't recall the name of the SF short story, but it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it. During one of these passages thru a "boosted" phase, one newly minted genius builds a rocket and flies out to scout ahead of Earth to find the boundary. He flies around until he feels stupider, then the autopilot reverses course and takes him back to where he was smarter. Thus he maps out what waits ahead for Earth.

The nagging part of this story is I forgot the ending, though I suspect it was that we were doomed to near-chimp-like intellect for some time to come if we stayed anchored to the planet and never left.

(Looks over at Q.A., arches eyebrow)


Anybody remember the title or author of this story?


I believe it was called "Brain wave", by Poul Anderson.

Could be wrong about the author, but I remember the story.


That's the one. It's old. I remember reading it in the late 1960s, and even then it had been around for a while.
 
2013-01-07 09:07:49 PM  
Let me know when we get out of Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, wouldja?
 
2013-01-07 09:13:33 PM  

Wenchmaster: IIRC, the ending of Brain Wave had all the enhanced-intellect humans leaving Earth for good, with the brain-damaged and congenitally stupid staying behind to try and survive in a world with sentient animals.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-07 09:55:42 PM  

dbirchall: Let me know when we get out of Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, wouldja?


Everybody knows that people from the plural sectors shouldn't travel through hyperspace!
 
2013-01-07 10:10:33 PM  

Any Pie Left: He flies around until he feels stupider,


I'm pretty sure that's what the Internet has done to me.
 
2013-01-07 10:30:15 PM  
The cool SF story I remember was by Weis & Hickman. Different areas of space had different rules of physics. So at earth, you have electromagnetism and e=mc2, but if you flew a spaceship out Pluto way, you pass into a region where everything works by magic. The cool part was that the regions moved around, so you'd have whole worlds where the rules of reality suddenly change and half the populace doesn't need guns because they just figured out how to shoot fireballs from their eyes and lightning from their arse.

It was a great series, but too bad they tried to turn it into another tabletop RPG like Dragonlance. The whole thing got caught up in some kind of legal battle and the end of the series never got written.
 
2013-01-07 10:45:46 PM  
How high do you have to get before you can become a theoretical physicist?
 
2013-01-07 10:47:51 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I hate when I see a term like "domain wall" in a story, think "oh cool", then hit Wikipedia for more info only to be thumped in the head with a bunch of mathematical gobbledygook like "topological solitions" and "discrete symmetry"...

Any Pie Left: Anybody remember the title or author of this story?

No, but it reminds me of this.


Daaaayum.
 
2013-01-07 10:48:15 PM  
punt
 
2013-01-07 11:03:33 PM  

MrEricSir: How high do you have to get before you can become a theoretical physicist?


Well, TFA  isfrom Berkeley.  These guys probably make Carl Sagan look straightedge. ;)

/Berkeley staff
//Straightedge
///Clearly doing it wrong
 
2013-01-08 12:31:01 AM  

Any Pie Left: I can't recall the name of the SF short story, but it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it. During one of these passages thru a "boosted" phase, one newly minted genius builds a rocket and flies out to scout ahead of Earth to find the boundary. He flies around until he feels stupider, then the autopilot reverses course and takes him back to where he was smarter. Thus he maps out what waits ahead for Earth.

The nagging part of this story is I forgot the ending, though I suspect it was that we were doomed to near-chimp-like intellect for some time to come if we stayed anchored to the planet and never left.

(Looks over at Q.A., arches eyebrow)

Anybody remember the title or author of this story?


No, but I remember a short story where everyone one on earth suddenly starts having weird coincidences. Little weird things like someone mentions a certain name and 5 people call you with that name -- basically someone mentions something innocuous or something commonplace happens and bizarre coincidences start occurring relating to that one random event or word. Like the "plate of shrimp" story in Repo Man.

Scientists finally theorize that "coincidence" and chance are variable in different areas of the universe and the solar system must be entering one these "heightened coincidence" areas.

Can't remember the ending exactly, but it went something like this: The story ends with someone using a metaphor for "dead" in a sentence in a public speech to millions -- and half of them unexpectedly drop dead.
 
2013-01-08 12:51:29 AM  
So thread jack,

I've been inquiring all my friends who America's greatest scientist is/was. All the greats I think about are European, Einstein, Oppenheimer, hawking, and then the really old ones like newton Kepler and so forth, but American?

Is it truly richard feynam, and because he like playing drums and going to strip clubs, we get Sagan and Neil Tyson degrassi instead?

Don't get me wrong I love those guys, but has any American matched feynam?

I need someone smarter than me and closer to the industry to answer that question, could it be dr Watson mapping the human genome, was he even American?

/???
 
2013-01-08 01:10:24 AM  
In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?
 
2013-01-08 01:17:33 AM  

JolobinSmokin: So thread jack,

I've been inquiring all my friends who America's greatest scientist is/was. All the greats I think about are European, Einstein, Oppenheimer, hawking, and then the really old ones like newton Kepler and so forth, but American?

Is it truly richard feynam, and because he like playing drums and going to strip clubs, we get Sagan and Neil Tyson degrassi instead?

Don't get me wrong I love those guys, but has any American matched feynam?

I need someone smarter than me and closer to the industry to answer that question, could it be dr Watson mapping the human genome, was he even American?

/???


Off the top of my head, there's Linus Pauling, though his later-years obsession with vitamin C seems a little cranky. There's Murray Gell-Mann, arguably a more important theoretical physicist than Feynman (I'm not qualified to actually make that argument one way or another). Ernest Lawrence. Andrew Wiles..nope, British. Donald Knuth? Edwin Hubble. The guy who invented the transistor...Shockley? Just a few names, I'm sure the power of Fark can find more nominees.
 
2013-01-08 01:17:41 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?


More like phlogiston, I think.
 
2013-01-08 01:22:42 AM  
JolobinSmokin :

Bucky Fuller comes to mind.

Edison.

And Robert Goddard.

The Wrights approached flight as scientists would.
 
2013-01-08 01:28:25 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?


I read a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology. And I've got a pretty good nose for detecting bullshiat, and for reading between the lines. I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the people writing these books are throwing together string, baling wire, gum and duct tape in an effort to reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.

To avoid having to deal with the issue, they create invisible, omnipresent, and extremely powerful forces and entities that they really can't prove exist (gee, does THAT sound familiar?), except to say "Well, uh, those have to exist for the theory to work."

That, IMHO, is not good science.
 
2013-01-08 01:45:07 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?



In all seriousness, yes, they take this "crap" seriously.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7KHjkooegc
 
2013-01-08 01:48:55 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I read a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology. And I've got a pretty good nose for detecting bullshiat, and for reading between the lines. I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the people writing these books are throwing together string, baling wire, gum and duct tape in an effort to reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.

To avoid having to deal with the issue, they create invisible, omnipresent, and extremely powerful forces and entities that they really can't prove exist (gee, does THAT sound familiar?), except to say "Well, uh, those have to exist for the theory to work."

That, IMHO, is not good science.



have you explored the possibility that instead of them making things up to avoid "the issue", that perhaps you just don't understand what they're talking about? because that would seem to be much more likely.
 
2013-01-08 02:25:20 AM  

log_jammin: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I read a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology. And I've got a pretty good nose for detecting bullshiat, and for reading between the lines. I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the people writing these books are throwing together string, baling wire, gum and duct tape in an effort to reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.

To avoid having to deal with the issue, they create invisible, omnipresent, and extremely powerful forces and entities that they really can't prove exist (gee, does THAT sound familiar?), except to say "Well, uh, those have to exist for the theory to work."

That, IMHO, is not good science.


have you explored the possibility that instead of them making things up to avoid "the issue", that perhaps you just don't understand what they're talking about? because that would seem to be much more likely.


The problem is these mathematically derived concepts are not empirically verifiable (yet). That leads to a certain skepticism.
 
2013-01-08 02:26:12 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?


Yeah, there are a few people who take these things seriously.

img545.imageshack.us

img708.imageshack.us

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-08 02:45:20 AM  

simplicimus: The problem is these mathematically derived concepts are not empirically verifiable (yet). That leads to a certain skepticism.


skepticism is great. The problem is, in this country too many people have this idea that Bob the sanitation guy's opinion on quantum mechanics is just as valid as the opinion of a scientist with a PhD in the field. That's how you get the type of "skepticism" where a guy who reads "a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology" comes to the conclusion that scientists just make stuff up in order to "avoid having to deal with the issue", whatever that means. It's that very mindset that gives us creationists and the people who let them get away with it.
 
2013-01-08 02:45:27 AM  

Any Pie Left: I can't recall the name of the SF short story, but it had at its core the concept that Earth was passing thru regions of mysterious energies that could either suppress intellect or boost it. During one of these passages thru a "boosted" phase, one newly minted genius builds a rocket and flies out to scout ahead of Earth to find the boundary. He flies around until he feels stupider, then the autopilot reverses course and takes him back to where he was smarter. Thus he maps out what waits ahead for Earth.

The nagging part of this story is I forgot the ending, though I suspect it was that we were doomed to near-chimp-like intellect for some time to come if we stayed anchored to the planet and never left.

(Looks over at Q.A., arches eyebrow)

Anybody remember the title or author of this story?


Flowers for Aphelion?
 
2013-01-08 02:46:17 AM  

JolobinSmokin: I've been inquiring all my friends who America's greatest scientist is/was. All the greats I think about are European, Einstein, Oppenheimer, hawking, and then the really old ones like newton Kepler and so forth, but American?

Is it truly richard feynam, and because he like playing drums and going to strip clubs, we get Sagan and Neil Tyson degrassi instead?


No disrespect, but Sagan and Tyson are known as well as they are not for being exceptional scientists - they weren't  bad by any means, they both had PhD's from top schools and all that - but for being exceptional communicators and using their communications skill to popularize science.  That wins you Pulitzers and Peabodies and Emmies, but it doesn't win you the Nobel, Shaw, Gruber, or the Einstein Medal, which tend to go more to people who devote a lot more time to doing science, and a lot less time to writing, speaking, etc.

Certainly, as a Nobel laureate, Feynman's  scientificchops were more recognize than those of Sagan and Tyson.  I'd say the same for Chu (now Secretary of Energy), Taylor (now at Princeton), Smoot (Berkeley), and Perlmutter (Berkeley).  Lawrence and Gell-mann have already been mentioned.  But I'm biased toward physics because those are the types I know or work with.  There are also chemists, and laureates in physiology/medicine, who'd  be good choices.

I could argue that the work of the 1998 physiology/medicine laureates, Furchgott, Ignarro, and Murad, on the role and function of Nitric Oxide as a vasodilator, has led to applications that are globally well-known, even though their names may be far less known than Sagan or Tyson.
 
2013-01-08 03:30:36 AM  

Fano: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?

More like phlogiston, I think.


I think that's what's making my bathroom sink back up.
 
2013-01-08 04:38:42 AM  

log_jammin: simplicimus: The problem is these mathematically derived concepts are not empirically verifiable (yet). That leads to a certain skepticism.

skepticism is great. The problem is, in this country too many people have this idea that Bob the sanitation guy's opinion on quantum mechanics is just as valid as the opinion of a scientist with a PhD in the field. That's how you get the type of "skepticism" where a guy who reads "a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology" comes to the conclusion that scientists just make stuff up in order to "avoid having to deal with the issue", whatever that means. It's that very mindset that gives us creationists and the people who let them get away with it.


As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.
 
2013-01-08 04:42:33 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?

I read a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology. And I've got a pretty good nose for detecting bullshiat, and for reading between the lines. I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the people writing these books are throwing together string, baling wire, gum and duct tape in an effort to reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.

To avoid having to deal with the issue, they create invisible, omnipresent, and extremely powerful forces and entities that they really can't prove exist (gee, does THAT sound familiar?), except to say "Well, uh, those have to exist for the theory to work."

That, IMHO, is not good science.


Of course nobody anywhere is saying that invisible dark matter definitely exists, in fact there are several competing ideas. Dark matter just happens to be the one that fits best right now.

i.e. stfu and deal with it or come up with a theory on your own that explains the galaxy's rotational velocity.
 
2013-01-08 04:50:37 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.


exactly. that's why just now when you typed "Log_jammin you are my hero and you rock so hard!!!" it was displayed on my screen as "As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason."

damn you quantum mechanics!!!
 
2013-01-08 04:51:40 AM  

log_jammin: The All-Powerful Atheismo: As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.

exactly. that's why just now when you typed "Log_jammin you are my hero and you rock so hard!!!" it was displayed on my screen as "As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason."

damn you quantum mechanics!!!


Don't be fatuous, log_jammin.
 
2013-01-08 05:05:01 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.


Quite a lot of experiments have yielded results indicating that space is expanding, and (in more recent experiments) that the expansion is accelerating.  Those are pretty widely accepted views at this point.  Do we* know why the expansion is accelerating?  Not yet.  But we suspect some sort of force or energy must be causing it (since things usually don't happen without a cause), and it's unseen, so the name "Dark Energy" will probably stick until we're better able to characterize and explain it, at which point it will get some boring name, sigh.

/or at least, if anyone else in the collaboration  doesknow, they haven't told  me yet.
//anyone have any Q's to stump Perlmutter's A? ;)
 
2013-01-08 07:37:49 AM  
Actually I think it's butterscotch pudding
 
2013-01-08 07:53:15 AM  

dbirchall: Quite a lot of experiments have yielded results indicating that space is expanding, and (in more recent experiments) that the expansion is accelerating.


They're not experiments; better to call them measurements.  We measured the expansion of the universe and saw that it's diverging from our calculations based on theory.  If Dark Energy doesn't exist then the universe is violating Newton's First Law of Motion.  Anyone who thinks that is the case has a LOT of explaining to do.
 
2013-01-08 07:55:41 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.


There was no First Cause and they're not looking for one. That is a fallacious argument.

/The laws of causality aren't actual physics laws. They're only used in philosophy and they are predicated on an absolute temporal constant. But we know that time is not absolute or constant; it is relative and predicated on velocity. So asserting cause and effect is a meaningless conjecture.
 
2013-01-08 08:02:24 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.


Yes, but the larger something is, the closer that "anything to happen at any time for no reason" approaches zero.

Apparently this means that for anything larger than an atom, the tendency for "anything to happen at any time for no reason" to occur would take longer than the estimated age of the Universe.

Woo woo speculators like Chopra tend to forget that part.
 
2013-01-08 08:05:39 AM  

dragonchild: dbirchall: Quite a lot of experiments have yielded results indicating that space is expanding, and (in more recent experiments) that the expansion is accelerating.

They're not experiments; better to call them measurements.


They're not  controlled experiments in a lab, sure.  (Type Ia supernovae do not make good laboratory test subjects. ;)

But we are methodically carrying out a procedure to verify, falsify, or establish the validity of a hypothesis.  Of course, in the physical sciences, some sort of quantitative  measurement is basically always part of that procedure.
 
2013-01-08 08:24:56 AM  
A: "You got your theory in my observations!"
B: "No, you made your observations according to my theory!"
 
2013-01-08 08:55:52 AM  

Jefferson Biatchmagnet: JolobinSmokin: So thread jack,

I've been inquiring all my friends who America's greatest scientist is/was. All the greats I think about are European, Einstein, Oppenheimer, hawking, and then the really old ones like newton Kepler and so forth, but American?

Is it truly richard feynam, and because he like playing drums and going to strip clubs, we get Sagan and Neil Tyson degrassi instead?

Don't get me wrong I love those guys, but has any American matched feynam?

I need someone smarter than me and closer to the industry to answer that question, could it be dr Watson mapping the human genome, was he even American?

/???

Off the top of my head, there's Linus Pauling, though his later-years obsession with vitamin C seems a little cranky. There's Murray Gell-Mann, arguably a more important theoretical physicist than Feynman (I'm not qualified to actually make that argument one way or another). Ernest Lawrence. Andrew Wiles..nope, British. Donald Knuth? Edwin Hubble. The guy who invented the transistor...Shockley? Just a few names, I'm sure the power of Fark can find more nominees.


Glenn Seaborg.
Robert Woodward, possibly the greatest organic chemist in the past 100 years. Directed the first (and, I think, only) total synthesis of vitamin B12.
 
2013-01-08 10:08:54 AM  

Ivo Shandor: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?

Yeah, there are a few people who take these things seriously.

[img545.imageshack.us image 640x355]

[img708.imageshack.us image 800x600]

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x389]


Regarding galactic rotation, MOND is an alternate explanation that doesn't require a magical halo of indescribable dark matter pooped out of a cosmic unicorn's butt.

Regarding WMAP, it's very nice that it proved that the big bang happened, but doesn't prove an acceleration happening now that's caused by the indescribable dark energy being pooped out of another (or the same?) unicorn's butt.
 
2013-01-08 11:00:20 AM  

log_jammin: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I read a LOT of layman-oriented stuff on cosmology. And I've got a pretty good nose for detecting bullshiat, and for reading between the lines. I'm beginning to get the impression that some of the people writing these books are throwing together string, baling wire, gum and duct tape in an effort to reduce the possibility of a First Cause to zero.

To avoid having to deal with the issue, they create invisible, omnipresent, and extremely powerful forces and entities that they really can't prove exist (gee, does THAT sound familiar?), except to say "Well, uh, those have to exist for the theory to work."

That, IMHO, is not good science.


have you explored the possibility that instead of them making things up to avoid "the issue", that perhaps you just don't understand what they're talking about? because that would seem to be much more likely.


Actually, that has always been my first thought. I'm a layman in most of science, not to mention highly mathematical science like quantum physics, cosmology and string theory. But, OTOH, it is fairly easy to understand the concepts behind e=mc2 and - after several years - Einstein's Special and General theories of relativity. OTOH, speaking of Einstein:

blog.tmcnet.com
To which I would add the addendum "...or you're confusing yourself with your own bullshiat." As an example of a reasonably intelligent and educated human being, at some point, after reading 20 or so books on cosmology by various authors, I am inexorably drawn to the conclusion that much of it is based on a "house of cards" model.

This is actually similar to intellectual gyrations about religious belief. Can't remember the exact Dawkins quote right now, but it would be similar to a theologian answering criticism about religious belief by adding another layer of bullshiat to the model. for example:
Q: "You say God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good; why, therefore, is there evil in the world? How could a God with those attributes allow evil to exist?"
A: (Answer predicated on the religious hierarchy's continued need for donations) "Ahhhh.... ahhhhhh...... so Men could prove their devotion to God by suffering and by helping the Church struggle against evil."

IOW, a house of cards where higher and higher levels of bullshiat are based on initial flawed premises.

IOW, if some or all of the foundational elements of modern physics/cosmology are wrong (possibly going back to the rejection of aether with the Michelson-Morley experiment, and, later, the various lofty pronouncements of Neils Bohr) then progress using those foundations can only be accomplished by piling theoretical (and practically-speaking untestable) "fixes" onto the base.

Here's a concrete example: Link The book caught my eye in a library and I read it. While doing so I increasing came to the conclusion that Krauss was either confused or laying down a thick carpet of bullshiat. Only later, when thinking about buying the book on Amazon, did I read the negative reviews, particularly one by David Milliern (3rd down, and see blog Link near ) which confirmed my earlier opinion: Krauss seems to be frantically trying to erect ANY kind of alternative explanation other than God for the existence of the universe, and "hang the consequences". IOW, he has an agenda beyond actually finding out the truth.

That is NOT to say that the idea of God creating the universe isn't also wrong. It's just saying that Krauss's explanation does not satisfactorily explain it either.
 
2013-01-08 11:13:12 AM  

Ivo Shandor: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: In all seriousness, does anyone in cosmology really take this dark matter /dark energy crap seriously?

I mean, nobody knows what they are or what they're made of, nor can anyone prove their existence by experiment.

Isn't it all kind of luminiferous-aether-y?

Yeah, there are a few people who take these things seriously.


Regarding that first picture, the graph of galactic rotation speed, it seems to me that you would need discreet "rings" (or circular waves or something) of dark matter concentric with the galaxy in order to keep the curve flat like that. Otherwise, if dark matter were more or less uniform, or at least following relatively the same distribution of matter as the visible stuff, you would just end up with the same curve as the predicted but it would be larger.

I need to read about this stuff more. And maybe make a spreadsheet graph or something. Thinking about it sure isn't helping me with the math. I'm thinking time-dilated gravitons due to the gravity flux between the center and the outer edges.

/Better use an inverse tachyon pulse.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report