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.

(Big Think)   Have you heard that dark energy is going to evolve, and a Big Crunch is in our future? That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us   (bigthink.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, General relativity, Big Bang, Universe, Dark energy, dark energy, Physical cosmology, Dark matter, light elements  
•       •       •

744 clicks; posted to STEM » on 25 May 2022 at 12:55 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



35 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-25 10:47:39 AM  
FTFA:
"For example, we've assumed, based on what we've observed, that dark energy has the following properties:
[...SNIP...]
-and right around the time that planet Earth was forming, it became the dominant form of energy in the Universe."
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-25 12:58:42 PM  
Didn't this site have an article a few weeks ago about how the big crunch could happen in a few dozen million years?
 
2022-05-25 1:01:25 PM  
As near as I can tell, no where in that article does it imply that anyone is lying about anything.
 
2022-05-25 1:05:56 PM  
Ok subby. Show us the rock solid proof of what dark energy is and why it wont end in a big crunch


We will wait
 
2022-05-25 1:08:19 PM  
*Billions of years later, eating popcorn*

Well this is boring.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2022-05-25 1:15:14 PM  
Subby was lying. A Big Crunch was inevitably in our future as soon as he posted.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-25 1:18:21 PM  
maybe all that dark energy is, is the convex curvature of spacetime when there is no mass to make it concave.  like, even if a galaxy was like a marble that made a dimple in space time, is still races along the convex curvature that results from empty space.  the bigger the distance between masses the steeper the convex curvature gets and the the faster mass will travel
 
2022-05-25 1:20:06 PM  
Tl;dr, the only way we get a Big Crunch is if dark energy suddenly pulls a "the neutrinos have mutated" on us.

/the electrons are angry
 
2022-05-25 1:42:18 PM  
That's right, subby. Let's ignore scientists and experts. That should work out great for us.

/who greenlights this shiat?
 
2022-05-25 1:45:39 PM  

sleze: /who greenlights this shiat?


Escaped lab monkeys after being lobotomized
 
2022-05-25 1:54:12 PM  
Imagine a thin sheet of latex, on which a number of small balls are glued. When the sheet is stretched, the distance between the balls increases, but the balls remain the same size. Their universe expands, but they do not.

Now, imagine that instead of latex, the balls are resting on a slab of granite, which cannot expand. But in this case, the balls themselves are gradually shrinking. From the perspective of the balls, their universe is expanding, but they are not.

So, yeah, I'm pretty high right now.
 
2022-05-25 2:03:33 PM  

lifeslammer: Ok subby. Show us the rock solid proof of what dark energy is and why it wont end in a big crunch


That is not how science works. The entire point of TFA is "The evidence we currently have suggests it won't happen and tweaking models to show how it might is different than proving it will." The author even states that if something completely out-of-pattern occurs, then things could wind up differently,

"You have to prove it's not real" instead of "show me good evidence it is real" is UFO/angel/ghost/unicorn logic.
 
2022-05-25 2:21:21 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: lifeslammer: Ok subby. Show us the rock solid proof of what dark energy is and why it wont end in a big crunch

That is not how science works. The entire point of TFA is "The evidence we currently have suggests it won't happen and tweaking models to show how it might is different than proving it will." The author even states that if something completely out-of-pattern occurs, then things could wind up differently,

"You have to prove it's not real" instead of "show me good evidence it is real" is UFO/angel/ghost/unicorn logic.


Fark user image
 
2022-05-25 3:29:22 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: lifeslammer: Ok subby. Show us the rock solid proof of what dark energy is and why it wont end in a big crunch

That is not how science works. The entire point of TFA is "The evidence we currently have suggests it won't happen and tweaking models to show how it might is different than proving it will." The author even states that if something completely out-of-pattern occurs, then things could wind up differently,

"You have to prove it's not real" instead of "show me good evidence it is real" is UFO/angel/ghost/unicorn logic.


Ok lets start with this one again. Show us evidence we have any farking idea about what dark energy even is to begin with. Then show us evidence about what impact it has on the universe, at a local, stellar, galactic and/or universal scale. Next show us evidence on what its effects have on the long term happenings in the universe

Why the fark are so many people so eager to skip right over the first two parts and play around with the third? At this point we have a better understanding of how magnets work than we do about dark matter, and some asshole blogger decides to arbitrarily declare what it does just to fill his daily quota, and people are dumb enough to actually say that we should listen to it because "its science"
 
2022-05-25 3:33:44 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-25 3:37:39 PM  
Fark user image
 
2022-05-25 3:50:14 PM  

lifeslammer: Ok lets start with this one again. Show us evidence we have any farking idea about what dark energy even is to begin with.


We still have a lot of questions about gravity, but that doesn't mean I should throw a hissy fit if an a physicist says "we have no evidence that things will fall up tomorrow." The question is  "Can we characterize its effects?" And the answer is yes.

lifeslammer: Then show us evidence about what impact it has on the universe, at a local, stellar, galactic and/or universal scale.


That is precisely what is in TFA. We have significant redshift evidence that the rate of the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but that it the force causing this is insignificant on small scales. This is not controversial.

lifeslammer: Next show us evidence on what its effects have on the long term happenings in the universe


That is also what is in TFA. If it continues evolving the way it has been, there will be no big crunch. If it changes its behavior, there might be. Some physicists have suggested alternate ideas, but the mainstream view is currently that this will not happen. And if tomorrow gravity makes things fall up, then physicists would have some explaining to do if they weren't all dead.

I don't see why you're getting mad at an astrophysicist for saying "We expect things to continue going the way they have been going based on the evidence we currently have."
 
2022-05-25 4:05:26 PM  
 
2022-05-25 4:11:16 PM  

lifeslammer: Ok lets start with this one again. Show us evidence we have any farking idea about what dark energy even is to begin with. Then show us evidence about what impact it has on the universe, at a local, stellar, galactic and/or universal scale. Next show us evidence on what its effects have on the long term happenings in the universe


"Hey, I don't understand the subject even at an 'I read the wikipedia article' level, but its obvious that the experts on the subject are wrong!!!1!!"

It always cracks me up that you have people who are obviously ignorant about the details of some specific areas of science, but then they loudly insist that the people who are world class experts are all full of it.  At some point you're just being the cosmological equivalent of bevets.

Anyway, a lot of your stuff can be addressed by just going to any of a number of places.  For example, here's a reasonable list of the impact dark energy has on the universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existence

I think that you also might want to read up on the basics of how science works.  You keep insisting that a theory is only valid if we have a complete metaphysical understand of all the particles/fields responsible for it.  In other words, we can only say that dark matter exists if we can fully describe the particle responsible for it, or that dark energy exists only when we can fully describe what causes it.

This is clearly nonsense.  Take gravity for example.  I think that the importance and existence of gravity is relatively uncontested.  Yet our theories of gravity can't meet the bars you're setting for stuff.  Modern theories differ quite a bit on what it "really" is at a fundamental level.  And certainly somebody like Newton, who make extremely useful theories of gravity, had no clue what gravity "really" was.

The same can be said of electromagnetic fields, or any of a number of things that clearly exist.

In the same way as gravity, we can see the effects of things like dark matter and dark energy and be pretty sure that they exist even if we can't fully describe the particles/fields involved.  Since science is the business of making predictions about observables, understanding the effects of something is adequate to say that it exists with a reasonable degree of certainty, even if the origin of the effects isn't fully understood.
 
2022-05-25 4:18:35 PM  

Krazikarl: It always cracks me up that you have people who are obviously ignorant about the details of some specific areas of science, but then they loudly insist that the people who are world class experts are all full of it.


stewart lee loch ness monster
Youtube FzOv14fA-BI
 
2022-05-25 4:39:03 PM  
Some people think that the increasing red shift of increasingly distant objects indicates that they are receding at increasing speeds. Some people are wrong. The fact of the matter is simply that light ages. The older it gets, the redder it gets. I am not a crackpot. A doctor told me I'm completely sane.
 
2022-05-25 4:54:17 PM  

Nimbull: *Billions of years later, eating popcorn*

Well this is boring.


I legit laughed out loud. Thank you so much, I really needed that!
 
2022-05-25 5:16:13 PM  
Have you heard that dark energy is going to evolve, and a Big Crunch is in our future?

I've heard it may do that, just like I've heard of a Big Rip. But all indications so far suggest a geometrically flat universe.

That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us.

No, Ethan. No. It's this kind of trollish nonsense that constantly reminds us that you and your slumlord self-promotions suck. You quit the field so long ago that you've now become a bitter old man.
 
2022-05-25 5:20:19 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us.

No, Ethan.


Think of Ethan what you will, but that's subby's take, and the article does not use the word "lie" or "lying."
 
2022-05-25 6:28:15 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: PartTimeBuddha: That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us.

No, Ethan.

Think of Ethan what you will, but that's subby's take, and the article does not use the word "lie" or "lying."


I understand, though I'm happy to be corrected, that Siegel submits his daily articles himself.

If this isn't the case, that's great, and I welcome the correction.
 
2022-05-25 6:35:09 PM  

jbc: Subby was lying. A Big Crunch was inevitably in our future as soon as he posted.

[Fark user image 500x500]


I thought Big Crunch was a breakfast cereal.
 
2022-05-25 6:57:24 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: Martian_Astronomer: PartTimeBuddha: That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us.

No, Ethan.

Think of Ethan what you will, but that's subby's take, and the article does not use the word "lie" or "lying."

I understand, though I'm happy to be corrected, that Siegel submits his daily articles himself.

If this isn't the case, that's great, and I welcome the correction.


Probably got tired of submitting headlines that reflect TFA and decided to do it fark way
 
2022-05-25 7:21:17 PM  

LewDux: decided to do it fark way


Fark Way would have at least included a stronger ICP reference.
 
2022-05-25 7:31:48 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: Martian_Astronomer: PartTimeBuddha: That's because there are scientists lying: first to themselves, and then to us.

No, Ethan.

Think of Ethan what you will, but that's subby's take, and the article does not use the word "lie" or "lying."

I understand, though I'm happy to be corrected, that Siegel submits his daily articles himself.

If this isn't the case, that's great, and I welcome the correction.


Ah. That hypothesis would have some explanatory value, although the Fark STEM tab doesn't really seem like it'd be worth one's time in terms of self-promotion.
 
2022-05-25 7:36:06 PM  

Craw Fu: jbc: Subby was lying. A Big Crunch was inevitably in our future as soon as he posted.

[Fark user image 500x500]

I thought Big Crunch was a breakfast cereal.


No, it's Chumley's alter ego.
 
2022-05-25 8:15:09 PM  
The thing that's always bothered me is:

If you plot the cosmological constant as a function of time rather than distance, then it leads to the exact opposite conclusion: that the expansion of the universe is not only slowing down, but has actually beginning to reverse.

And no one can explain to me why cosmologists think it's a function of distance rather than time.
 
2022-05-25 9:56:43 PM  

akallen404: The thing that's always bothered me is:

If you plot the cosmological constant as a function of time rather than distance, then it leads to the exact opposite conclusion: that the expansion of the universe is not only slowing down, but has actually beginning to reverse.

And no one can explain to me why cosmologists think it's a function of distance rather than time.


Not 100% sure I understand the question correctly, but from what I'm thinking it's because the further away from you any point is, the more space there is expanding between you and that point. Draw a line between you and that point, and space is expanding all along that line, not just at the ends. So for far away points, their regression is compounded by all the points between you and it.
 
2022-05-25 10:14:33 PM  
Monkeys Understand the Universe. Film at 10.
 
2022-05-26 12:59:07 AM  

akallen404: The thing that's always bothered me is:

If you plot the cosmological constant as a function of time rather than distance, then it leads to the exact opposite conclusion: that the expansion of the universe is not only slowing down, but has actually beginning to reverse.

And no one can explain to me why cosmologists think it's a function of distance rather than time.


I think that you've misinterpreted something.  My guess is that you're confusing H, the Hubble parameter, and "a", the scale factor.  See, for example, the first answer here:

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/25982/does-the-hubble-constant-depend-on-redshift

Distance and time are pretty similar in cosmology - the further something is away from us, the further back in time it is.  Distance is usually easier to measure than time, so that's why its used more commonly.  But astronomers do think in terms of time (the so called Hubble Time being a common way of thinking about time) when useful.
 
2022-05-26 7:58:23 AM  

Spectrum: Some people think that the increasing red shift of increasingly distant objects indicates that they are receding at increasing speeds. Some people are wrong. The fact of the matter is simply that light ages. The older it gets, the redder it gets. I am not a crackpot. A doctor told me I'm completely sane.


Not sure if joking or have stumbled across a fundamental truth of the Universe.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 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.