|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
 Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 17:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Vid won't load here.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
vewy hinteresting..
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
At about 26:00 he says, in the beginning there was little space so the effects of dark energy were very small. But he talks as if the space expanded in space! :\
I like the overall tone of the talk, funny and interesting 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 17:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | But he talks as if the space expanded in space! :\ |
Uhm, that's because space IS expanding. Space is basically created with matter and energy. Imagine universe as an expanding bubble (in reality a very uneven bubble). There's nothing outside that bubble, no space, no nothing (no "outside the bubble" in fact).
That's why there are galaxies that are moving away from us way faster than light, space expands while matter and energy is moving in it.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 18:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: | | But he talks as if the space expanded in space! :\ |
Uhm, that's because space IS expanding. Space is basically created with matter and energy. Imagine universe as an expanding bubble (in reality a very uneven bubble). There's nothing outside that bubble, no space, no nothing (no "outside the bubble" in fact).
That's why there are galaxies that are moving away from us way faster than light, space expands while matter and energy is moving in it. |
No, you misunderstood me. According to the BBT, Space was made with the 'bang'. You cannot look at it as something with the boundary that expands in something we don't know and cannot know, only philosophize about it. If you have nothing to expand in, the bubble image (mind construct) is false.
I never had any problem with BBT, because it's now a law, it's just a theory, and the beautiful thing about theories is that you can prove them wrong with the experiment. It's only normal to find new things about the universe and expand our knowledge.
So in the end I think we'll probably find new model that will surpass the BB model and then try to understand universe in that light
Have in mind that we actually don't know anything about dark matter or dark energy. We also just speculate they are there, make models that would work if we have these 'dark' terms in our equations.
Until we can find a definite proof of them (by observation, because that's what you do in astronomy, cosmology) we can only speculate and try to find the most logical models that are in compliance with todays observations and knowledge.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 18:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: | | But he talks as if the space expanded in space! :\ |
Uhm, that's because space IS expanding. Space is basically created with matter and energy. Imagine universe as an expanding bubble (in reality a very uneven bubble). There's nothing outside that bubble, no space, no nothing (no "outside the bubble" in fact).
That's why there are galaxies that are moving away from us way faster than light, space expands while matter and energy is moving in it. |
No, you misunderstood me. According to the BBT, Space was made with the 'bang'. You cannot look at it as something with the boundary that expands in something we don't know and cannot know, only philosophize about it. If you have nothing to expand in, the bubble image (mind construct) is false.
I never had any problem with BBT, because it's now a law, it's just a theory, and the beautiful thing about theories is that you can prove them wrong with the experiment. It's only normal to find new things about the universe and expand our knowledge.
So in the end I think we'll probably find new model that will surpass the BB model and then try to understand universe in that light
Have in mind that we actually don't know anything about dark matter or dark energy. We also just speculate they are there, make models that would work if we have these 'dark' terms in our equations.
Until we can find a definite proof of them (by observation, because that's what you do in astronomy, cosmology) we can only speculate and try to find the most logical models that are in compliance with todays observations and knowledge. |
There is no need to assume that the universe had a initial point of origin, other than to justify the source of hydrogen and the apparent visual horizon that only permits us to see events up to 13 billion years away.
There can be a wide array of explanations to those issues that don't involve a created universe.
Also the mere issue that we need to assume there was a period of extremely fast inflation just to make the math work, is all the more reason why I think there is something severely wrong with this model.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 18:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | No, you misunderstood me. According to the BBT, Space was made with the 'bang'. You cannot look at it as something with the boundary that expands in something we don't know and cannot know, only philosophize about it. If you have nothing to expand in, the bubble image (mind construct) is false. |
The whole bubble-thing was just a simplified explanation. There's no boundary since space isn't expanding into something. Space is expanding, that's a fact as far as I know. There's no medium that space expands into, space itself is the medium.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Sep 2011 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Fainter wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: | | Frant wrote: |
Uhm, that's because space IS expanding. Space is basically created with matter and energy. Imagine universe as an expanding bubble (in reality a very uneven bubble). There's nothing outside that bubble, no space, no nothing (no "outside the bubble" in fact).
That's why there are galaxies that are moving away from us way faster than light, space expands while matter and energy is moving in it. |
No, you misunderstood me. According to the BBT, Space was made with the 'bang'. You cannot look at it as something with the boundary that expands in something we don't know and cannot know, only philosophize about it. If you have nothing to expand in, the bubble image (mind construct) is false.
I never had any problem with BBT, because it's now a law, it's just a theory, and the beautiful thing about theories is that you can prove them wrong with the experiment. It's only normal to find new things about the universe and expand our knowledge.
So in the end I think we'll probably find new model that will surpass the BB model and then try to understand universe in that light
Have in mind that we actually don't know anything about dark matter or dark energy. We also just speculate they are there, make models that would work if we have these 'dark' terms in our equations.
Until we can find a definite proof of them (by observation, because that's what you do in astronomy, cosmology) we can only speculate and try to find the most logical models that are in compliance with todays observations and knowledge. |
There is no need to assume that the universe had a initial point of origin, other than to justify the source of hydrogen and the apparent visual horizon that only permits us to see events up to 13 billion years away.
There can be a wide array of explanations to those issues that don't involve a created universe.
Also the mere issue that we need to assume there was a period of extremely fast inflation just to make the math work, is all the more reason why I think there is something severely wrong with this model. |
There is no need, but from what we see this model gives the best outcome to todays observable universe (with some obvious problems that may give rise to a new and better model).
As for the superinflation just to make the math work, look at string theory, they added extra 10 dimensions just so that the math works, they still have no absolute proof of it, and the majority of the physical society treats it as some kind of holy grail that will reveal the mysteries of the universe xD
@Frant: The expansion itself (of the universe ofc) is a big area for philosophy. How can you expand something into nothing? Plus we only see what the physics allows us to see: speed of light gives limit of 13.7 billion ly of observable space, who is to say that that's it's real size?
These are really questions you can ponder on and give wild answers to, you know, letting your imagination run wild
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnarchoS
Posts: 2142
Location: An Archos
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 13:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Problem with most human beings is that we equate everything with our own finite existence, there has to be a start and an end to everything.
People tend to not understand that some things just are they did not begin and will never end.
The universe just is thats how i see it, and who says that the universe is expanding, objects in universe r just moving and interacting as do all things around us. From our perspective it looks that way but we see a really small part of the universe and things tend to change when u see more.
Its just a thought.
A.F.A.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 14:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnarchoS wrote: | Problem with most human beings is that we equate everything with our own finite existence, there has to be a start and an end to everything.
People tend to not understand that some things just are they did not begin and will never end.
The universe just is thats how i see it, and who says that the universe is expanding, objects in universe r just moving and interacting as do all things around us. From our perspective it looks that way but we see a really small part of the universe and things tend to change when u see more.
Its just a thought. |
Well we equate it so because of experience. Stars are also created out of gas, they burn and live and they die, sometimes violently, sometimes not.
There is also the increase of entropy or second law of thermodynamics, that says that, at the very least, everything has an end (ok the universe is a tricky thing because you don't have a boundary and then the system-surroundings things gets more complicated, as Landau said in his book).
I think that it's only natural to try to understand it the way we do, you know, the beginning and the end. We are a part of the nature (universe) as well
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 22:15 Post subject: |
|
|
"String theory is a Seventh Age science that accidentally fell into the Third Age." xD
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 23:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| human_steel wrote: | | Why is Fainter banned? |
Moderators sensed something... shall we say anarchistic about him xD
Sad tho, I was just to have a nice debate 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51401
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 23:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | Moderators sensed something... shall we say anarchistic about him xD
Sad tho, I was just to have a nice debate |
Really?
I liked the Fabric of Reality vid... now I feel so dirty.
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 10th Sep 2011 00:35 Post subject: |
|
|
More? Please
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
.
