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.

(Wired)   Scientists at subby's workplace have found a signal from the beginning of time. Possibly a Nobel Prize winning discovery   (wired.com) divider line 259
    More: Spiffy, Nobel Prize, Planck epoch, Lawrence Krauss, discovery, theory of relativities, gravitational wave, accelerating universe, signals  
•       •       •

13215 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:31 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 07:46:08 PM  

Khellendros: I suppose I'm being a pedantic pain


Ding ding ding
 
2014-03-17 08:04:56 PM  
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
 
2014-03-17 08:29:34 PM  

rbuzby: Khellendros: I suppose I'm being a pedantic pain

Ding ding ding



I'll take being a pedantic pain over being someone who attempts to assert scientific opinion with no basis in scientific method.
 
2014-03-17 08:42:06 PM  

jylcat: Heh, A tweet from one of our scientists (i yam subby):

"Randall Smith @smith_randallk 2h
@planet4589 Scientists researching in Antarctica return with major news. Why am I afraid we'll hear they've awakened an ancient terror?


We're not... who... we are. We're not... who we are. It goes no further than this. It stops right here... right now.
 
2014-03-17 10:17:52 PM  
"HELLO WORLD"
 
2014-03-18 03:59:43 AM  

error 303: Max Awesome: Awesome. I love this field of science.

Okay, so the inflation occurred just before the Big Bang - there was a sudden expansion. But where did the universe expand into? Just a featureless void with no matter, energy, stuff?

Or did the universe displace something that was alreadythere? Was our creation also an act of destruction?

Well, inflation happened essentially immediatly after the big bang. Regarding what we're expanding into, I feel like the answer is largely "nothing" or maybe "nothingness" would be a better description. Or just that the universe isnt expanding into anything, it's just expanding. I've always thought it was at best a moot question, or at least one more geared towards philosophy.

Now if you mean outside our "observable" universe, the answer is largely "more of the same". The fac that our universe is 13.8 billion LY across really only refers to our observable universe, and I think at this point it's pretty well established that the "actual" universe extends well beyond that.


Interesting. Thanks - I wasn't aware of that distinction.

SCIENCE! WHOO! farkYEAH!!!
 
2014-03-18 07:49:18 AM  

Khellendros: If you insist - geocentric solar system ideas were not mathematically elegant - nor were they mathematical at all. Circular orbits were not mathematical at all.


What? Yes they were. They were absolutely mathematical. They were mathematical constructs that allowed for (fairly accurate) predictions of the locations of the planets in the sky. They made predictions, and said "HEY PLANET WILL BE HERE IF YOU LOOK ON DAY X AT TIME Z.", and, generally, the planet was there. They became convoluted as hell to explain retrograde motion, but that does not mean they weren't 'mathematical'.

That's one of the (many) reasons why Copernicus had such a hard time: His theory *DID NOT PREDICT THE PLANETS POSTIONS* better than the geocentric epicycles method.
 
2014-03-18 10:31:57 AM  

Felgraf: Khellendros: If you insist - geocentric solar system ideas were not mathematically elegant - nor were they mathematical at all. Circular orbits were not mathematical at all.

What? Yes they were. They were absolutely mathematical. They were mathematical constructs that allowed for (fairly accurate) predictions of the locations of the planets in the sky. They made predictions, and said "HEY PLANET WILL BE HERE IF YOU LOOK ON DAY X AT TIME Z.", and, generally, the planet was there. They became convoluted as hell to explain retrograde motion, but that does not mean they weren't 'mathematical'.

That's one of the (many) reasons why Copernicus had such a hard time: His theory *DID NOT PREDICT THE PLANETS POSTIONS* better than the geocentric epicycles method.



You are correct.  I was using the term mathematical model when I was thinking causal model.  The Almagest did indeed put forth a mathematical model, but put forth no evidence of the mechanisms of the motion.  My apologies.
 
2014-03-18 01:58:39 PM  

Khellendros: You are correct. I was using the term mathematical model when I was thinking causal model. The Almagest did indeed put forth a mathematical model, but put forth no evidence of the mechanisms of the motion. My apologies.


Alright, understood. That part in particular made my brain go "wait what no. What."

Glad that's been cleared up! Thanks. =)a
 
Displayed 9 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report