Skip to content
 
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.

(Forbes)   Roger Penrose: wins Nobel Prize for work 55 years ago, immediately touts his own crackpot theory   (forbes.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Big Bang, General relativity, Cosmic microwave background radiation, Physical cosmology, Universe, theory of the hot Big Bang, Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, Redshift  
•       •       •

1269 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 08 Oct 2020 at 8:42 AM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



25 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-08 4:31:37 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-08 5:09:43 AM  
Anne Elk on Brontosauruses Live o2 Arena 5th July 2014
Youtube Xs7r5xfucPs
 
2020-10-08 5:30:06 AM  
Everyone knows the pre-Big Bang universe ended up being distilled into 6 gems - or stones, if you will. I remember seeing a documentary about it last summer.

I'm surprised this crank hasn't heard of it, it was pretty popular.
 
2020-10-08 5:58:15 AM  
When I look for the answers to the cosmos' greatest questions, I too read f*cking Forbes.
 
2020-10-08 8:20:25 AM  
thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-08 8:56:08 AM  
This is why science is great though. Because the quality of the work is what matters.

Penrose is a genius. He's also something of a crackpot.

But because reality gets to be the arbiter of what counts as 'quality', it's not as big a deal.
 
2020-10-08 9:51:37 AM  

no1curr: When I look for the answers to the cosmos' greatest questions, I too read f*cking Forbes.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-08 10:03:20 AM  
I mean honestly you could just look at the life cycle of a sun and acceptably say that the universe is the exact same on a far more massive scale

Big bang (supernova)
Universe (nebula, star/planet formation, entire solar lifecycle)
Big crunch (end of stellar life)
Big Bang


Of course, I will give two farks about Ethans opinion when he lets us know why there is so much more gold in the universe than should be possible
 
2020-10-08 10:11:38 AM  

lifeslammer: Of course, I will give two farks about Ethans opinion when he lets us know why there is so much more gold in the universe than should be possible


Here you go
 
2020-10-08 10:44:32 AM  
He looks like someone I would believe explaining high level cosmology.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/Definitely not cosmetology though
 
2020-10-08 11:17:42 AM  
I have a question. Two, actually.

1. How did Forbes become Fark's go-to for popular astronomy and cosmology?

2. When did Forbes become a popular science mag in the first place?
 
2020-10-08 12:15:06 PM  
It makes perfect sense.
 
2020-10-08 1:32:16 PM  
These passages:

While science moved on to the Big Bang becoming part of the consensus, i.e., a sensible starting point for future science, Hoyle and his ideological allies worked to hold back the progress of science by advocating for scientifically untenable alternatives.

Ultimately, science moved on while the contrarians became more and more irrelevant, with their trivially incorrect work fading into obscurity and their research programme eventually ceasing upon their deaths.


. . . in TFA have no business being uttered by a scientist. I don't care if a fellow scientist argues for the universe being born of the fart made by an enormous rubber chicken, you don't dismiss and belittle the work done by other scientists, because even wrong answers are valuable and add knowledge. They don't add as much as a right answer might. Bit they still add. Ethan can go fark himself if he thinks he gets to be any kind of arbiter when it comes to deciding what other scientists should think and research. Disprove their wacky ideas with the data if you can, it's fine to say why you think they are wrong. It's not fine to belittle or begrudge a person's work.

We aren't talking about some bible thumping yahoo, but a scientist who Ethan thinks legitimately earned a Nobel. So what if he's wrong? We still know more than we did yesterday and the current model of the universe is slightly stronger for being tested against these notions.

History is too full of wacky notions suddenly making sense to be so dismissive of them.
 
2020-10-08 1:38:47 PM  

Boudyro: These passages:

While science moved on to the Big Bang becoming part of the consensus, i.e., a sensible starting point for future science, Hoyle and his ideological allies worked to hold back the progress of science by advocating for scientifically untenable alternatives.

Ultimately, science moved on while the contrarians became more and more irrelevant, with their trivially incorrect work fading into obscurity and their research programme eventually ceasing upon their deaths.

. . . in TFA have no business being uttered by a scientist. I don't care if a fellow scientist argues for the universe being born of the fart made by an enormous rubber chicken, you don't dismiss and belittle the work done by other scientists, because even wrong answers are valuable and add knowledge. They don't add as much as a right answer might. Bit they still add. Ethan can go fark himself if he thinks he gets to be any kind of arbiter when it comes to deciding what other scientists should think and research. Disprove their wacky ideas with the data if you can, it's fine to say why you think they are wrong. It's not fine to belittle or begrudge a person's work.

We aren't talking about some bible thumping yahoo, but a scientist who Ethan thinks legitimately earned a Nobel. So what if he's wrong? We still know more than we did yesterday and the current model of the universe is slightly stronger for being tested against these notions.

History is too full of wacky notions suddenly making sense to be so dismissive of them.


I thought those passages were petty also.
 
2020-10-08 2:59:41 PM  

MikeyFuccon: I have a question. Two, actually.

1. How did Forbes become Fark's go-to for popular astronomy and cosmology?

2. When did Forbes become a popular science mag in the first place?


I have a single answer:  The author has been blogging about astrophysics for quite a while and sometime back moved the blog to Forbes.
 
2020-10-08 3:08:30 PM  

Boudyro: you don't dismiss and belittle the work done by other scientists, because even wrong answers are valuable and add knowledge


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-08 3:13:41 PM  
OK, in all seriousness it does sound like Ethan's nerd rage was a bit triggered when writing that, but there does come a point at which adherence to theories that do not fit observation becomes counterproductive to furthering scientific understanding.
 
2020-10-08 4:31:11 PM  

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: Boudyro: you don't dismiss and belittle the work done by other scientists, because even wrong answers are valuable and add knowledge

[Fark user image 450x450]


Dark matter sounded an awful lot like Aether to this layman when I first heard of it.

All I'm saying is sometimes the way up is down. That's why testing and data matters. I don't disagree with Ethan's data-based conclusions at all. He was being decidedly unscientific in expressing how he felt though. Like the guy banged his wife or kicked his dog.

/Yes, those are both the same level of evil.
 
2020-10-08 5:20:54 PM  
"Honey, they're not lovers, they're control group. I was just being decidedly scientific"
 
2020-10-08 6:40:29 PM  

no1curr: When I look for the answers to the cosmos' greatest questions, I too read f*cking Forbes.


We read Forbes for science and Teen Vogue for politics. Such is life in 2020.
 
2020-10-08 11:49:12 PM  

lifeslammer: I mean honestly you could just look at the life cycle of a sun and acceptably say that the universe is the exact same on a far more massive scale

Big bang (supernova)
Universe (nebula, star/planet formation, entire solar lifecycle)
Big crunch (end of stellar life)
Big Bang


Of course, I will give two farks about Ethans opinion when he lets us know why there is so much more gold in the universe than should be possible


Stars do not have a 'life cycle', except metaphorically. To project the quality of 'life' onto these diminishing fusion events is the height of animorphism.
 
2020-10-09 2:09:19 AM  

Boudyro: All I'm saying is sometimes the way up is down.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-09 9:46:09 AM  
Yeah, contrarians like Hoyle and Penrose hold back scientific progress. All the smart kids know that the only way to be smart is to agree with the professors. That's how progress is made.

And if we're dissing Hoyle and Penrose, what about that idiot Einstein? Obviously god does play dice with the universe. Sure glad we understand everything about quantum mechanics now. And anything we don't understand is dark matter, dark energy, quintessence, which we haven't observed, QED. Only a cave man would think otherwise.

Nature > Scientific American > Popular Mechanics > Reader's Digest > Forbes
 
2020-10-09 10:09:18 AM  
As I understand it as a layman, dark energy is the force that pushes outward and makes the Universe expand.

How do we know there is nothing "beyond" our Universe that is actually pulling on it to cause the expansion?

It's a random thought that just popped up in my head. So where better to ask than on Fark.
 
2020-10-09 12:16:53 PM  

turboke: As I understand it as a layman, dark energy is the force that pushes outward and makes the Universe expand.

How do we know there is nothing "beyond" our Universe that is actually pulling on it to cause the expansion?

It's a random thought that just popped up in my head. So where better to ask than on Fark.


Because the universe isn't expanding outward at an edge, all open space is all constantly expanding, with the rate of expansion constrained by gravity. Gravitationally unbound objects aren't so much moving apart themselves as the space between them is expanding, all points in space, simultaneously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansi​o​n_of_the_universe#:~:text=The%20expans​ion%20of%20the%20universe,the%20observ​able%20universe%20with%20time.&text=To​%20an%20observer%20it%20appears,are%20​receding%20into%20the%20distance.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.