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.

(Daily Telegraph)   Scientist: "The big bang never happened. Here's my math." Spock: "Fascinating." Subby: "My brain hurts." Scientist: "What, you didn't think there'd be math? Let me laugh even harder"   ( dailytelegraph.com.au) divider line
    More: Interesting, General relativity, Universe, Big Bang, Gravitational singularity, Dark matter, Redshift, Multiverse, Galaxy  
•       •       •

3233 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Dec 2017 at 9:20 AM (33 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-12-01 08:59:00 AM  
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang (bang)!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangaea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big bang!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way.
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big... bang!
 
2017-12-01 09:05:00 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang (bang)!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangaea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big bang!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way.
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big... bang!


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 09:11:10 AM  
I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.
 
2017-12-01 09:14:00 AM  
Yes yes yes, of course and all. But what was there before that time?
 
2017-12-01 09:16:12 AM  

edmo: Yes yes yes, of course and all. But what was there before that time?


Fully Clothed Ladies?
 
2017-12-01 09:20:25 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


But not real hate.

Because that would be crool.....
 
2017-12-01 09:22:11 AM  
Uh, this is just the Big Bounce, which is really more of a possible sub-category of the Big Bang than a replacement for it. Also not really a new idea.
 
2017-12-01 09:33:22 AM  
Old idea gets fresh lick of paint...

Great?
 
2017-12-01 09:38:46 AM  

Delta1212: Uh, this is just the Big Bounce, which is really more of a possible sub-category of the Big Bang than a replacement for it. Also not really a new idea.


img.fark.netView Full Size


Kirk: "Spock.... is... that..... what we... were...... looking.... for?"

Spock: "Negative, Jim. This is only a medium to small 'bounce'. Still fascinating, nonetheless."
 
2017-12-01 09:41:25 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 09:43:29 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 09:48:08 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: [img.fark.net image 320x240]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 09:51:18 AM  
There's no such thing as infinity in this universe. We know all is finite. Infinity is a placeholder for innacurate mathematical models of what is.

Black holes return infinity now because we've yet to make enough observations for a better model. Ditto the idea of a Big Bang. Imagine seeing one part of one frame of Casablanca move for one split second and trying to extrapolate the entire history of cinematography. That's astronomy now trying to explain the origin of the universe.

This Brazillian guy might be on to something big.
 
2017-12-01 09:51:47 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: [img.fark.net image 320x240]


Kirk would so wanna bang that.
 
2017-12-01 09:54:51 AM  

RJReves: Tr0mBoNe: [img.fark.net image 320x240]

Kirk would so wanna bang that.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 09:56:15 AM  
A bunch of CGI with a voice over by Mike Rowe might convince me.
Otherwise, FO.
 
2017-12-01 09:58:43 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


Ahh, c'mon... how can you hate this song? It's fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kAJO​S​CyTB0

nulluspixiusdemonica: Old idea gets fresh lick of paint...

Great?


My thought as well. Also, how can we prove we're not still inside of a singularity?
 
2017-12-01 10:02:50 AM  
The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.
 
2017-12-01 10:06:10 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


Okay Jake, you are clearly in a bad space today, but Drew is our friend, and the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum. Are you?
 
2017-12-01 10:08:06 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


Man. Just give them one week.
 
2017-12-01 10:09:47 AM  
nothing can bee seen

OK then.
 
2017-12-01 10:10:50 AM  

batlock666: Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.

Okay Jake, you are clearly in a bad space today, but Drew is our friend, and the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum. Are you?


And every year, Bud Light outsells every other domestic beer, so what's your point?
 
2017-12-01 10:14:42 AM  

Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.


Animaniacs - The Universe Song
Youtube qtMr_2ilqv8
 
2017-12-01 10:15:34 AM  

RJReves: Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtMr_2il​qv8]


Tom Lehrer CHEMISTRY element song
Youtube DYW50F42ss8

/amidoinitrite?
 
2017-12-01 10:22:31 AM  
We don't know what's under an event horizon. Therefore, I just made you say underwear.
 
2017-12-01 10:22:49 AM  
Identifying these would clinch the argument and kill-off the Big Bang theory once and for all.

Good.  That show has been on the air for too farking long.
 
2017-12-01 10:24:49 AM  
Neves' argument proposes a universe without singularities would produce an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction.

The universe races outwards until it reaches a tipping point. The space between the widely dispersed mass acts as a rubber band, reversing its motion.


While this guy is certainly welcome to propose alternatives to the existence of singularities, (though the article never really explains how,) the idea of a cyclical universe has been inconsistent with observational astronomy for almost 20 years now. For most of the 20th century, (ever since Hubble determined that the universe was expanding, really,) astronomers were anxious to determine the value of the Hubble Parameter: If the parameter was greater than one, the universe would eventually fall back in on itself, (known as the Big Crunch.) If it was less than one, the universe would continue expanding until all free energy was lost, and the universe would die a heat death.

In 1998, the discussion changed dramatically when two independent efforts determined that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, meaning that the Hubble parameter is not constant. Based on current evidence, we're headed for a "Big Freeze" scenario where the universe spreads out and disperses. (There's also another potential scenario called the Big Rip where the continued expansion of the universe makes all structure impossible, but that is a bit less certain.) While it is certainly possible that new weird discoveries will be made that put the Big Crunch back on the table, most astrophysicists do not think that's what's going to happen.

I'm not an astrophysicist, and not really qualified to evaluate this guy's paper, but it would seem to me that in order to postulate a "big crunch" scenario, he'd be rethinking more of modern physics than just singularities, which makes the whole thing seem suspect, (at least as presented in the article.)
 
2017-12-01 10:25:07 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


Fine, then. Send them to me. I don't care if she's blond, brunette but do prefer redheads.
 
2017-12-01 10:29:10 AM  
Pure logic.
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 10:29:14 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtMr_2il​qv8]

[YouTube video: Tom Lehrer CHEMISTRY element song]
/amidoinitrite?


What are "amido nitrites"?
 
2017-12-01 10:33:49 AM  

RJReves: Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtMr_2il​qv8]

[YouTube video: Tom Lehrer CHEMISTRY element song]
/amidoinitrite?

What are "amido nitrites"?


I was apparently not doing it "rite"
 
2017-12-01 10:38:30 AM  

batlock666: the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum. Are you?


Ah, yes, the classic (and laughably stupid) idea that

a) the success of something determines it's worth ("I'm wealthy, so I'm better than you.")
b) the success of something determines whether or not someone should appreciate it ("Like what everybody else likes!")
c) just because one doesn't participate in an activity, or achieved a certain goal, means one can't have an opinion about or critique it ("You've never made a movie, Ebert; how dare you say my movie was bad!")

Also, if you don't have children, you can't tell the difference between good parents and bad ones, and men can't be gynecologists, what with lacking a vaginas and all.
 
2017-12-01 10:39:56 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtMr_2il​qv8]

[YouTube video: Tom Lehrer CHEMISTRY element song]
/amidoinitrite?

What are "amido nitrites"?

I was apparently not doing it "rite"


That's what she said
 
2017-12-01 10:46:57 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: batlock666: the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum. Are you?

Ah, yes, the classic (and laughably stupid) idea that

a) the success of something determines it's worth ("I'm wealthy, so I'm better than you.")
b) the success of something determines whether or not someone should appreciate it ("Like what everybody else likes!")
c) just because one doesn't participate in an activity, or achieved a certain goal, means one can't have an opinion about or critique it ("You've never made a movie, Ebert; how dare you say my movie was bad!")

Also, if you don't have children, you can't tell the difference between good parents and bad ones, and men can't be gynecologists, what with lacking a vaginas and all.


Which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans.
 
2017-12-01 10:49:45 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: I'm not an astrophysicist, and not really qualified to evaluate this guy's paper, but it would seem to me that in order to postulate a "big crunch" scenario, he'd be rethinking more of modern physics than just singularities, which makes the whole thing seem suspect, (at least as presented in the article.)

Haven't gone over it but generally speaking, these theories crop up because they solve one problem or other, then die a horrible death when applied to other problems.  The tricky thing about cosmological models is that they have to account for literally everything in the universe, past and present.  Black holes get a lot of attention because they're parts of the universe where gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics violently mash into each other, so it's a spot where your math really needs to hold up.  What we have now, by definition consistent with observations, unfortunately allows for some pretty weird stuff that's extremely difficult to observe.  Scientists get cranky when their explanation for observable reality creates a Russel's teapot by mistake.
 
2017-12-01 10:51:38 AM  

Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.


I did a Google search for "Dixie Chicks" once and got Chicks With Dicks.
 
2017-12-01 10:53:18 AM  

RJReves: Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Tr0mBoNe: RJReves: Jake Havechek: The Galaxy Song by Monty Python explains all this.

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtMr_2il​qv8]

[YouTube video: Tom Lehrer CHEMISTRY element song]
/amidoinitrite?

What are "amido nitrites"?

I was apparently not doing it "rite"

That's what she said


Tell me about it.. she won't respond to my texts any more.
 
2017-12-01 11:05:05 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

/bail
 
2017-12-01 11:09:04 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 11:55:07 AM  

Merltech: Pure logic.
[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]


That picture has always bothered me. Seemed like philosophy should be at the far right with mathematics being applied philosophy.
 
2017-12-01 12:10:01 PM  

edmo: Yes yes yes, of course and all. But what was there before that time?


It was the beginning of space and time. There was no before, as time did not exist.
 
2017-12-01 12:17:42 PM  
I'm not going to believe this guy.  The media told me the big bang happened and I don't understand science, I just believe what scienticians I trust tell me.  And I don't trust this guy, so he's wrong.
 
2017-12-01 12:22:58 PM  

Jake Havechek: batlock666: Jake Havechek: I farkin' hate the Barenaked Ladies.

Okay Jake, you are clearly in a bad space today, but Drew is our friend, and the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum. Are you?

And every year, Bud Light outsells every other domestic beer, so what's your point?


(You're not playing along, so I'll just skip to the end.)

You know what? Maybe we all need some space, to pull the knife out of the back of the most celebrated Canadian alt-rock band of the mid-90s, you selfish, jaded ass!

/Don't care about BNL.
//But I love Community!
 
2017-12-01 12:29:22 PM  
Still a Big Bang by any normal person's definitions of "Big" and "Bang", just not a singularity.
 
2017-12-01 12:30:57 PM  

edmo: Yes yes yes, of course and all. But what was there before that time?


It's turtles all the way down.
 
2017-12-01 12:38:13 PM  

moos: Merltech: Pure logic.
[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

That picture has always bothered me. Seemed like philosophy should be at the far right with mathematics being applied philosophy.


It's almost like xkcd is a soapbox for Randall Munroe's all-too-human stuff-Randall-Munroe-likes-centric worldview.

/Likes hyphenated adjectives
 
2017-12-01 12:39:54 PM  
Refuses to live in a world without a big bang:

farm6.static.flickr.comView Full Size
 
2017-12-01 12:41:39 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Neves' argument proposes a universe without singularities would produce an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction.

The universe races outwards until it reaches a tipping point. The space between the widely dispersed mass acts as a rubber band, reversing its motion.

While this guy is certainly welcome to propose alternatives to the existence of singularities, (though the article never really explains how,) the idea of a cyclical universe has been inconsistent with observational astronomy for almost 20 years now. For most of the 20th century, (ever since Hubble determined that the universe was expanding, really,) astronomers were anxious to determine the value of the Hubble Parameter: If the parameter was greater than one, the universe would eventually fall back in on itself, (known as the Big Crunch.) If it was less than one, the universe would continue expanding until all free energy was lost, and the universe would die a heat death.

In 1998, the discussion changed dramatically when two independent efforts determined that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, meaning that the Hubble parameter is not constant. Based on current evidence, we're headed for a "Big Freeze" scenario where the universe spreads out and disperses. (There's also another potential scenario called the Big Rip where the continued expansion of the universe makes all structure impossible, but that is a bit less certain.) While it is certainly possible that new weird discoveries will be made that put the Big Crunch back on the table, most astrophysicists do not think that's what's going to happen.

I'm not an astrophysicist, and not really qualified to evaluate this guy's paper, but it would seem to me that in order to postulate a "big crunch" scenario, he'd be rethinking more of modern physics than just singularities, which makes the whole thing seem suspect, (at least as presented in the article.)


WTF?

Didn't follow the article, but it seemed like it was argueing whether or not the big bang started from a singularity or not.  There are two major issues here:

Expansion has been happening for a very long time.  If you want to argue against a black hole, try finding some non-readshifted galaxys, perfably from a long time ago, far, far away.
"Acts as a rubber band", except that the rate of the universe is expanding (and nobody knows why.  The current claim is "dark energy" which might as well be phlogiston).  Come with a good theory of increased expansion (or more properties for dark energy) and you might have a theory.  But you need experimental data to justify something that off the wall and it doesn't  look like it is there.
 
2017-12-01 01:07:18 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: edmo: Yes yes yes, of course and all. But what was there before that time?

It's turtles all the way down.


img.fark.netView Full Size



That's not very far at all
 
2017-12-01 02:46:01 PM  

moos: Merltech: Pure logic.
[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

That picture has always bothered me. Seemed like philosophy should be at the far right with mathematics being applied philosophy.


Ask and the internet provides..... 

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.

Report