ravells
August 8th, 2006, 12:44 PM
Here's the reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230368/
Malenfant
August 8th, 2006, 04:20 PM
It's definitely interesting, but I'm waiting til they take some more measurements on the andromeda galaxy and other nearby ones before I'm revising my assumed age of the universe numbers (currently at 13.7 Ga).
Either way, it still seems that our *galaxy* is 13.6 billion years old, from other measurements that don't depend on hubble. So that's what matters when it comes to figuring out maximum ages for stars in Traveller.
Either way, it still seems that our *galaxy* is 13.6 billion years old, from other measurements that don't depend on hubble. So that's what matters when it comes to figuring out maximum ages for stars in Traveller.
RainOfSteel
August 8th, 2006, 05:57 PM
In Timothy Ferris', The Whole Shebang, he reported that one Inflation researcher had determined that the universe might be as large as 10^10^12.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then.
sid6.7
August 8th, 2006, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
In Timothy Ferris', The Whole Shebang, he reported that one Inflation researcher had determined that the universe might be as large as 10^10^12.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then. when they determine the "exact" size
of the universe....im always gonna
wonder...then whats beyond that?
:eek: graemlins/file_21.gif
In Timothy Ferris', The Whole Shebang, he reported that one Inflation researcher had determined that the universe might be as large as 10^10^12.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then. when they determine the "exact" size
of the universe....im always gonna
wonder...then whats beyond that?
:eek: graemlins/file_21.gif
RainOfSteel
August 8th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by sid6.7:
when they determine the "exact" size
of the universe....im always gonna
wonder...then whats beyond that?
Well, the current idea is that there is nothing. You can't get past the edge of the universe because you literally can't go where the universe isn't.
when they determine the "exact" size
of the universe....im always gonna
wonder...then whats beyond that?
Well, the current idea is that there is nothing. You can't get past the edge of the universe because you literally can't go where the universe isn't.
Blue Ghost
August 8th, 2006, 10:38 PM
One of the intriguing theories of the origins of the universe is that the universe itself is a result of a collision between two super-membranes, or "branes". This implies that there's a kind of "space" between two oscillating things that collide every now and then. If this is the case, then there may be some "thing" beyond normal universe existance. By that I mean a kind of "space" beyond normal "space".
Note, this isn't to imply hyper-space, which is a different concept, but yet an entirely different form of space beyond what is theorized.
Amazing what one learns (or perhaps infers) from PBS Nova specials. smile.gif
Note, this isn't to imply hyper-space, which is a different concept, but yet an entirely different form of space beyond what is theorized.
Amazing what one learns (or perhaps infers) from PBS Nova specials. smile.gif
ravells
August 9th, 2006, 04:08 AM
What I don't get is that it says that current thinking is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and about 156 billion light-years wide.
My layman's mind tells me that if it was 13.7 billion years old it should be 13.7b X 2 light years wide = 27.4 billion light years? How do they get to 156b?
My layman's mind tells me that if it was 13.7 billion years old it should be 13.7b X 2 light years wide = 27.4 billion light years? How do they get to 156b?
TheEngineer
August 9th, 2006, 05:40 AM
Hi !
Universe expansion is an expansion of space itself and not "movement" of mass thru space. Thus its not subject to any lightspeed limitations and the diameter reachable in those 13.7b years is considerable greater.
Best regards,
TE
Universe expansion is an expansion of space itself and not "movement" of mass thru space. Thus its not subject to any lightspeed limitations and the diameter reachable in those 13.7b years is considerable greater.
Best regards,
TE
ravells
August 9th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Thanks Mert but I still don't understand (I'm being dumb)...
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. Beyond that expansion there is no matter or energy and therefore it cannot be measured as there is nothing to measure it by, so the wave sets out the boundaries of what is 'the universe'. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. Beyond that expansion there is no matter or energy and therefore it cannot be measured as there is nothing to measure it by, so the wave sets out the boundaries of what is 'the universe'. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs
Icosahedron
August 9th, 2006, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs You are thinking in 3 dimensions!
The classic way to describe it is this:
The Big Bang didn't happen at one place in the universe and create a 3D light wavefront, it happened everywhere at once, thereby creating the universe.
Imagine a black sphere whose surface is painted with dots. Those dots are galaxies. Our 3D universe is represented by the 2D surface of the sphere.
As the sphere gets bigger, the surface expands and the galaxies get further apart, yet although the surface area (our volume) is increasing, it has a finite value at any given time. Also, the galaxies are not moving across the surface and hence limited by lightspeed, but are being carried with its expansion.
In the past, the universe was smaller, and at one time it was so small that all points on the surface were at one point together - the Big Bang.
The only things outside our 3D universe (beyond the surface of the sphere) in this spherical model are Past (inside) and Future (outside) because the radial dimension into which the Universe is expanding is Time.
Does that help? smile.gif
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs You are thinking in 3 dimensions!
The classic way to describe it is this:
The Big Bang didn't happen at one place in the universe and create a 3D light wavefront, it happened everywhere at once, thereby creating the universe.
Imagine a black sphere whose surface is painted with dots. Those dots are galaxies. Our 3D universe is represented by the 2D surface of the sphere.
As the sphere gets bigger, the surface expands and the galaxies get further apart, yet although the surface area (our volume) is increasing, it has a finite value at any given time. Also, the galaxies are not moving across the surface and hence limited by lightspeed, but are being carried with its expansion.
In the past, the universe was smaller, and at one time it was so small that all points on the surface were at one point together - the Big Bang.
The only things outside our 3D universe (beyond the surface of the sphere) in this spherical model are Past (inside) and Future (outside) because the radial dimension into which the Universe is expanding is Time.
Does that help? smile.gif
ravells
August 9th, 2006, 07:10 AM
Yes! Thank you!
Ravs
Ravs
RainOfSteel
August 9th, 2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
One of the intriguing theories of the origins of the universe is that the universe itself is a result of a collision between two super-membranes, or "branes". This implies that there's a kind of "space" between two oscillating things that collide every now and then. If this is the case, then there may be some "thing" beyond normal universe existance. By that I mean a kind of "space" beyond normal "space".
You're talking about M-Theory developments of String Theory (and both aren't theories yet, they're both just hypotheses).
The Elegant Universe program quite readily admitted that there is no way to test String/M-Theories, and so in the near-term they'll remain interesting hypotheses.
The show also didn't explain a lot of things. Including any information on the rate at which string/membranes collided*, whether or not new collisions emerged as separate universes/dimensions or universes in the same space-time, etc.
One of the intriguing theories of the origins of the universe is that the universe itself is a result of a collision between two super-membranes, or "branes". This implies that there's a kind of "space" between two oscillating things that collide every now and then. If this is the case, then there may be some "thing" beyond normal universe existance. By that I mean a kind of "space" beyond normal "space".
You're talking about M-Theory developments of String Theory (and both aren't theories yet, they're both just hypotheses).
The Elegant Universe program quite readily admitted that there is no way to test String/M-Theories, and so in the near-term they'll remain interesting hypotheses.
The show also didn't explain a lot of things. Including any information on the rate at which string/membranes collided*, whether or not new collisions emerged as separate universes/dimensions or universes in the same space-time, etc.
Blue Ghost
August 9th, 2006, 05:55 PM
I think you mean conjecture, but I understand.
Well, I thought it was interesting. If anything I'm not even an amateur cosmologist, just a former engineering student who grew up with astronomy books. I think the show, differing from the article, was a simple analogous explanation for the average Joe of what scientific minds are doing these days, and not a formal education on the mathematical foundations of the topic.
Well, I thought it was interesting. If anything I'm not even an amateur cosmologist, just a former engineering student who grew up with astronomy books. I think the show, differing from the article, was a simple analogous explanation for the average Joe of what scientific minds are doing these days, and not a formal education on the mathematical foundations of the topic.
TheEngineer
August 9th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Dont worry Blue Ghost, guess there are only a handfull of people who *eventually* have the math foundations for that topic smile.gif
AFAIK there are still a few math foundations left to discover in order to make a theory out of this idea.
AFAIK there are still a few math foundations left to discover in order to make a theory out of this idea.
aramis
August 10th, 2006, 05:31 AM
BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing."
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing."
Malenfant
August 10th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Will you just cut all this cynical anti-science crap you keep spouting, Aramis? I don't know what the hell science did to you, did it blow away some hare-brained idea you came up with about how the universe worked or something?
There's no "Sci-speak" or secret hidden agenda or conspiracy to falsify things. A hypothesis is a testable idea to explain observed data, nothing more. It may or may not be valid, depending on further observations. If it doesn't fit the observations then it's not valid as it stands and the hypothesis needs to be changed. That's all there is to it.
There's no "Sci-speak" or secret hidden agenda or conspiracy to falsify things. A hypothesis is a testable idea to explain observed data, nothing more. It may or may not be valid, depending on further observations. If it doesn't fit the observations then it's not valid as it stands and the hypothesis needs to be changed. That's all there is to it.
sid6.7
August 10th, 2006, 05:50 PM
just a might touchy today mal?
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
some keywords are tentative, assumption
and conditional.....
with that in mind one could make the
jump from "true until proven false"
to "false until proven true"...
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
some keywords are tentative, assumption
and conditional.....
with that in mind one could make the
jump from "true until proven false"
to "false until proven true"...
Malenfant
August 10th, 2006, 06:05 PM
No, just sick of this anti-science crap. A hypothesis is exactly what it sounds like, is all.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. There's no assumption that it's "true" or "false" implicit beforehand in that at all. You formulate a hypothesis (sometimes to explain existing data, sometimes not) and then you test it by making objective observations. If those observations produce data that supports the hypothesis then great, gather more and see if it can be independently confirmed. If it doesn't, then that usuallly means that the hypothesis is either flawed and needs to be change til it fits the observations.
Sure, it's tentative, that's the whole darn point of it. But if data is gathered that supports the hypothesis (and to be clear, the hypothesis has to be tweaked to fit the observations - not the other way round) then it becomes less and less tentative and more proven. Even then, it's subject to change if better data can be gathered - our scientific view of the univere isn't fixed and unchanging, it's changing all the time. Some people seem to think it's less valid because of that, but that's simply not at all true - it'd be a lot less valid if it didn't change at all.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. There's no assumption that it's "true" or "false" implicit beforehand in that at all. You formulate a hypothesis (sometimes to explain existing data, sometimes not) and then you test it by making objective observations. If those observations produce data that supports the hypothesis then great, gather more and see if it can be independently confirmed. If it doesn't, then that usuallly means that the hypothesis is either flawed and needs to be change til it fits the observations.
Sure, it's tentative, that's the whole darn point of it. But if data is gathered that supports the hypothesis (and to be clear, the hypothesis has to be tweaked to fit the observations - not the other way round) then it becomes less and less tentative and more proven. Even then, it's subject to change if better data can be gathered - our scientific view of the univere isn't fixed and unchanging, it's changing all the time. Some people seem to think it's less valid because of that, but that's simply not at all true - it'd be a lot less valid if it didn't change at all.
RainOfSteel
August 10th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Aramis:
BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing." That is not my understanding of the situation, but I'll have to go off and review what I have read previously before I try and make any further assertions.
BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing." That is not my understanding of the situation, but I'll have to go off and review what I have read previously before I try and make any further assertions.
RainOfSteel
August 10th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
[...] cynical anti-science crap [...] spouting [...]Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice?
[...] cynical anti-science crap [...] spouting [...]Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice?
RainOfSteel
August 10th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by sid6.7:
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
That was my understanding in general, and I assure one and all that the above was the context I used the word in.
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
That was my understanding in general, and I assure one and all that the above was the context I used the word in.
princelian
August 10th, 2006, 06:45 PM
I believe Aramis was trying to convey humor, not insult, Mal. That's my conjecture, anyhow.
It can't be a hypothesis, because I really can't test it. Nor, because I want peace and harmony on CotI, do I wish to test it. That would involve spanging potential insults at people and measuring the effect.
And now I've ruined it anyway because now you're all aware of the test. I'd want at least a single blind to get a reasonably accurate result, and double or triple would be better.
However, on to universes....
I really liked the analogy of the inflating sphere with the physical universe in 2D on the surface. I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me "how can the universe be >100 billion LY across if it's only 13+ billion years old and you can't exceed the speed of light?" No one is very likely to ask (I have a dearth of physics-interested friends, unfortunately), but I'll have an illustration prepped for that happy discussion.
J-space, then, allows you to "tunnel" through from point to point on that surface without having to go "around," and the deeper you go into the sphere, the faster your trip, even if it's just a few millionths of a degree along the sphere's surface.
The geometry of the INSIDE of that sphere, now, THAT'S a toughie, but we know that you can't exceed J-6 and it always takes a week to tunnel down and back. smile.gif
It can't be a hypothesis, because I really can't test it. Nor, because I want peace and harmony on CotI, do I wish to test it. That would involve spanging potential insults at people and measuring the effect.
And now I've ruined it anyway because now you're all aware of the test. I'd want at least a single blind to get a reasonably accurate result, and double or triple would be better.
However, on to universes....
I really liked the analogy of the inflating sphere with the physical universe in 2D on the surface. I'll have to remember that the next time someone asks me "how can the universe be >100 billion LY across if it's only 13+ billion years old and you can't exceed the speed of light?" No one is very likely to ask (I have a dearth of physics-interested friends, unfortunately), but I'll have an illustration prepped for that happy discussion.
J-space, then, allows you to "tunnel" through from point to point on that surface without having to go "around," and the deeper you go into the sphere, the faster your trip, even if it's just a few millionths of a degree along the sphere's surface.
The geometry of the INSIDE of that sphere, now, THAT'S a toughie, but we know that you can't exceed J-6 and it always takes a week to tunnel down and back. smile.gif
Malenfant
August 10th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
[...] cynical anti-science crap [...] spouting [...]Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see anything "not nice" about what I said. I call it anti-science crap that he's spouting because that's exactly what it is. Aramis has a history of trying to put down and undermine science based on flawed assumptions about how it works. Now I see he's doing it again, I'm not allowed to call him on it and point out how and why he's wrong?
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
[...] cynical anti-science crap [...] spouting [...]Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see anything "not nice" about what I said. I call it anti-science crap that he's spouting because that's exactly what it is. Aramis has a history of trying to put down and undermine science based on flawed assumptions about how it works. Now I see he's doing it again, I'm not allowed to call him on it and point out how and why he's wrong?
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes:
Gaming Glen
August 10th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes: [/QB]:(
But I love science stuff.
Wait. I have a hypothesis: The person known as Malenfant is a storehouse of scientific knowledge. Now, I just need more data to confirm it. :D
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes: [/QB]:(
But I love science stuff.
Wait. I have a hypothesis: The person known as Malenfant is a storehouse of scientific knowledge. Now, I just need more data to confirm it. :D
Malenfant
August 10th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes: :(
But I love science stuff.
Wait. I have a hypothesis: The person known as Malenfant is a storehouse of scientific knowledge. Now, I just need more data to confirm it. :D [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I'll be posting it on the Comstar/Avenger TAS boards. And lots more on the Spica project boards at SPL, if you can get into those (though they're not open to the public, IIRC).
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
And people wonder why I don't post science stuff here anymore. :rolleyes: :(
But I love science stuff.
Wait. I have a hypothesis: The person known as Malenfant is a storehouse of scientific knowledge. Now, I just need more data to confirm it. :D [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I'll be posting it on the Comstar/Avenger TAS boards. And lots more on the Spica project boards at SPL, if you can get into those (though they're not open to the public, IIRC).
aramis
August 10th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Sounded more like a personal attack.
I was posting a practical definition... in response to someone's assertion that the theory in question was conjecture, not a hypothesis.
It's both.
con·jec·ture P Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
v. tr.
To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.
v. intr.
To make a conjecture.Contradictory data is, axiomatically, inconclusive.
Of course, your post looks like, was taken as, and has been reported as, a personal attack.
I was posting a practical definition... in response to someone's assertion that the theory in question was conjecture, not a hypothesis.
It's both.
con·jec·ture P Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
v. tr.
To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.
v. intr.
To make a conjecture.Contradictory data is, axiomatically, inconclusive.
Of course, your post looks like, was taken as, and has been reported as, a personal attack.
Malenfant
August 10th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Nice try. Only problem is that there's no "personal attack" in there at all - you have been and are anti-science, your post was very cynical dig at the scientific process, and that's what I called it as.
But again, it seems to be OK here for you to spout your nonsense about how flawed you think science is, but not OK for me to tell people that you're wrong and show them how you're deliberately misleading people.
You could have explained the difference a hell of a lot better without resorting to your inaccurate "devil's dictionary" version that you posted. But since you have an anti-science agenda you just went ahead and posted your cynical garbage as fact.
I mean, where the hell do you get off by slandering the scientific community and what it does all the time? And why the hell should I sit by and let you do that? I may not be a professional scientist by career anymore, but that doesn't make me any less of a scientist in how I think or act or what I do. So I'll stand up and defend science no matter what, and I'll damn well take it personally when people like you try to slander and undermine it.
But again, it seems to be OK here for you to spout your nonsense about how flawed you think science is, but not OK for me to tell people that you're wrong and show them how you're deliberately misleading people.
You could have explained the difference a hell of a lot better without resorting to your inaccurate "devil's dictionary" version that you posted. But since you have an anti-science agenda you just went ahead and posted your cynical garbage as fact.
I mean, where the hell do you get off by slandering the scientific community and what it does all the time? And why the hell should I sit by and let you do that? I may not be a professional scientist by career anymore, but that doesn't make me any less of a scientist in how I think or act or what I do. So I'll stand up and defend science no matter what, and I'll damn well take it personally when people like you try to slander and undermine it.
RainOfSteel
August 11th, 2006, 12:25 AM
I would just like to say for the record that I found nothing anti-science or slanderous in Aramis' post in question.
I felt it was referring, though only in the most indirect manner, to what I said in a slightly out of context way, but then nothing is perfect in this world.
I'm not going to ask how "agenda's" suddenly crept into this.
I felt it was referring, though only in the most indirect manner, to what I said in a slightly out of context way, but then nothing is perfect in this world.
I'm not going to ask how "agenda's" suddenly crept into this.
Malenfant
August 11th, 2006, 01:43 AM
OK, I'll break it down then.
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing."- "Sci-speak"? What's this "sci-speak"? Do scientists have a secret language now that uses the same common words that English uses but with different meanings? Do we have any agenda to hide information from the public in this way? No. A hypothesis as defined in science is exactly the same as a hypothesis you'd find defined in a common dictionary.
- Is Aramis' statement quoted above even a dictionary definition of hypothesis? No. So why is it being passed off as a legitimate definition of the word?
- "Conjecture"? No, a hypothesis is not a conjecture at all. A conjecture is what Aramis would claim and has claimed is "a wild-ass guess". That's not how science works.
I've explained it before, but I'll explain it again. It's basically like what most of you should have done in school in science class - you start with a hypothesis, come up with an experiment, get the results, come to a conclusion and see whether your hypothesis is valid or not. If the hypothesis fits the data, then you can refine it and expand it and test it further. If it doesn't, then you have to modify the hypothesis so that it does fit the data. But either way, the initial hypothesis is not by any means a "wild ass guess" (again, Aramis' words, not mine) - it's usually an educated guess at the very least, usually based on previous observations.
-"...which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review"? No. A hypothesis is still a hypothesis regardless of whether it has been peer-reviewed.
-"...fits the available data". Well at least he got something right.
-"...and is worthy of testing"? Again, no. There's no "worth" involved on a purely scientific level - if a hypothesis is testable, it's worth testing. The only place that "worth" comes in is from a financial perspective, because money is so tight that we have to scrabble for grants and claim that "my science is better than their science" to the research councils so we can grab at the scraps of money thrown our way. Either way, from a purely scientific perspective hypotheses aren't tested based on their "worthiness", they're tested based on whether we can get data and observations to get a meaningful result.
Put all that together, along with Aramis' previously demonstrated hostility towards the scientific method and the knowledge acquired by it, and the way he phrased the whole thing as if it were fact rather than his opinion or interpretation of fact (which it obviously is) and it's not surprising that I took it as an "anti-science statement". His one sentence is riddled with inaccuracy and opinion, stated as fact when it's not.
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing."- "Sci-speak"? What's this "sci-speak"? Do scientists have a secret language now that uses the same common words that English uses but with different meanings? Do we have any agenda to hide information from the public in this way? No. A hypothesis as defined in science is exactly the same as a hypothesis you'd find defined in a common dictionary.
- Is Aramis' statement quoted above even a dictionary definition of hypothesis? No. So why is it being passed off as a legitimate definition of the word?
- "Conjecture"? No, a hypothesis is not a conjecture at all. A conjecture is what Aramis would claim and has claimed is "a wild-ass guess". That's not how science works.
I've explained it before, but I'll explain it again. It's basically like what most of you should have done in school in science class - you start with a hypothesis, come up with an experiment, get the results, come to a conclusion and see whether your hypothesis is valid or not. If the hypothesis fits the data, then you can refine it and expand it and test it further. If it doesn't, then you have to modify the hypothesis so that it does fit the data. But either way, the initial hypothesis is not by any means a "wild ass guess" (again, Aramis' words, not mine) - it's usually an educated guess at the very least, usually based on previous observations.
-"...which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review"? No. A hypothesis is still a hypothesis regardless of whether it has been peer-reviewed.
-"...fits the available data". Well at least he got something right.
-"...and is worthy of testing"? Again, no. There's no "worth" involved on a purely scientific level - if a hypothesis is testable, it's worth testing. The only place that "worth" comes in is from a financial perspective, because money is so tight that we have to scrabble for grants and claim that "my science is better than their science" to the research councils so we can grab at the scraps of money thrown our way. Either way, from a purely scientific perspective hypotheses aren't tested based on their "worthiness", they're tested based on whether we can get data and observations to get a meaningful result.
Put all that together, along with Aramis' previously demonstrated hostility towards the scientific method and the knowledge acquired by it, and the way he phrased the whole thing as if it were fact rather than his opinion or interpretation of fact (which it obviously is) and it's not surprising that I took it as an "anti-science statement". His one sentence is riddled with inaccuracy and opinion, stated as fact when it's not.
TheEngineer
August 11th, 2006, 03:16 AM
Hi !
Peace !.
Calm down, everybody.
I cvan understand rising hostility, but not towards scientific methods, but towards pretty negative examples of scientific practice, which become appearent during the last couple of years and produced enough bad press.
Sadly todays science is willingly or unwillingly coupled with business and there are enough people willing to "set up some hypothesis" in order to create interest and get financial support, "come up with an experiment", which makes sense and oh, wonder, creates results they needed.
But thats no longer science but just bad or criminal business.
In this context A's remark is understandable, but as I said, its IMHO not against science but bad practice.
Taking high end theoretical astrophysics many hypothesis suffer from, that its not or just hardly possible to set up any experiments to test them. That turns many - maybe serious meant hypothesis - into guesses.
But, in order to protect the status of scientists just look at this little extract from "The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang" by Khoury1, Ovrut, Steinhardt and Neil Turok :
While parts of our scenario remain speculative at present (such as the dynamics of the small instanton phase transition), it is our hope that advances in heterotic M-theory will eventually allow us to solidify the components of our cosmological model.
For the moment, we consider our scenario as a first step towards a new, testable model for the early universe consistent with current cosmological observations and fully-motivated by string theory. See, everybody is sure of the actual state of development, but sometimes its just neccesary to present speculative stuff in science, too in order to push things forward and to create new motivations.
Anyway, the quality of this board depends on the existence and the quality of scientific remarks.
We deal with Science Fiction, and if we would start to loose the science part here, we would loose the backbone of Traveller.
So anybody please dont stop to post stuff, regardless if its a well known fact, a full featurered hypothesis or even just a "wild ass guess" (sometimes we have no approriate words in german language to express such meanings so compact smile.gif ).
Regards,
TE
Peace !.
Calm down, everybody.
I cvan understand rising hostility, but not towards scientific methods, but towards pretty negative examples of scientific practice, which become appearent during the last couple of years and produced enough bad press.
Sadly todays science is willingly or unwillingly coupled with business and there are enough people willing to "set up some hypothesis" in order to create interest and get financial support, "come up with an experiment", which makes sense and oh, wonder, creates results they needed.
But thats no longer science but just bad or criminal business.
In this context A's remark is understandable, but as I said, its IMHO not against science but bad practice.
Taking high end theoretical astrophysics many hypothesis suffer from, that its not or just hardly possible to set up any experiments to test them. That turns many - maybe serious meant hypothesis - into guesses.
But, in order to protect the status of scientists just look at this little extract from "The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang" by Khoury1, Ovrut, Steinhardt and Neil Turok :
While parts of our scenario remain speculative at present (such as the dynamics of the small instanton phase transition), it is our hope that advances in heterotic M-theory will eventually allow us to solidify the components of our cosmological model.
For the moment, we consider our scenario as a first step towards a new, testable model for the early universe consistent with current cosmological observations and fully-motivated by string theory. See, everybody is sure of the actual state of development, but sometimes its just neccesary to present speculative stuff in science, too in order to push things forward and to create new motivations.
Anyway, the quality of this board depends on the existence and the quality of scientific remarks.
We deal with Science Fiction, and if we would start to loose the science part here, we would loose the backbone of Traveller.
So anybody please dont stop to post stuff, regardless if its a well known fact, a full featurered hypothesis or even just a "wild ass guess" (sometimes we have no approriate words in german language to express such meanings so compact smile.gif ).
Regards,
TE
far-trader
August 11th, 2006, 03:17 AM
I hate to speak up and be labled by you Mal as a personal enemy and hater of science* but I've got to agree with RoS and probably others who are remaining silent on this (more wisely so than myself).
* of which I'm not either but you seem to be going to extremes of late :(
I too didn't see this as any attack, personal or anti-science, previous possible (I don't recall) bias or not on Aramis' part. It read to me as simply an attempt to put it into layman's terms.
To borrow your own breakdown method:
"Sci-speak" - Admit it, science does employ a jargon, most professions do, and the words do not always fit the layman's vocabulary. Hypothesis is one of those words.
"Is Armamis' definition a dictionary definition" - Pretty close really, but he was aiming for a layman's definition. My handiest dictionary has this as one definition (bracket notes mine) "An assumption (synonym of conjecture) or assumptions provisionally accepted (survived peer review, fits the available data), especially as a basis for further investigation (and is worthy of testing)." Really quite spot on to Aramis' I'd say.
"Conjecture? No, a hypothesis is not a conjecture at all" - Yes. Conjecture, another synonym of Hypothesis. A hypothesis IS conjecture.
"Worthy of testing" - You yourself use "worth testing" in the very sentence you deny Aramis the use of "worth" testing as a measure of a hypothesis. Put it this way: A hypothesis that is found to fail tests is not worth further tests. One that has passed tests is worth further tests, if for no other reason than to independantly validate the other tests. That's peer review isn't it.
And finally...
Put all that together, along with Aramis' previously demonstrated hostility towards the scientific method and the knowledge acquired by it, and the way he phrased the whole thing as if it were fact rather than his opinion or interpretation of fact (which it obviously is) and it's not surprising that I took it as an "anti-science statement". His one sentence is riddled with inaccuracy and opinion, stated as fact when it's not."Disregard previously demonstrated hostility (again I just don't recall it and can't say there was or wasn't), there is none implied or specific in that statement taken at face value. Neither does it seem phrased as fact rather than opinion in that light. And it is not riddled with with inaccuracy as I've shown.
It is easy to see you took it, incorrectly I think, as anti-science and even personally, based largely if not solely on prejudice developed from previous encounters, which to my mind is not very open minded. Understandable sure, forgivable certainly, even expected to a degree. It's still not that acceptable when you go on about it and respond with personal attacks. Yes personal attacks. At least to the mind of a few, including the one they were directed to. You don't seem to see it though, and yet I get the strong feeling you felt personally attacked by Aramis' statement where I don't see it.
I'm worried for your calm friend, and your continued good presence here on CotI. You need to take a step back, a deep breath, and count to 10 after some of these "trigger posts" I've seen you reply to here lately. They aren't really out to get you or science as much as you seem to imagine. Not that I've seen here lately at least. Out there elsewhere, daily in the news, and in a now defunct forum here, yes. There are ignorant savages that Darwinism should have culled ages ago but for the fact that science keeps saving them in spite of themselves, because that's how science works. That's one of the ironies of life that I detest and yet still find amusing. I pray to God that science wins the tussle and eventually finds a permanent cure for them all.*
* just more irony, so thickly knotted you might need Alexander himself to cut through it smile.gif
Well, I've taken this far enough off topic. If it's drifted into the realm of "here there be MODERATORS" who devour such posts whole or snack on bits of them then so be it. I'm just trying to help.
To post or not to post? Tough question. Obvious answer though not swiftly reached. Hope it was the right one...
* of which I'm not either but you seem to be going to extremes of late :(
I too didn't see this as any attack, personal or anti-science, previous possible (I don't recall) bias or not on Aramis' part. It read to me as simply an attempt to put it into layman's terms.
To borrow your own breakdown method:
"Sci-speak" - Admit it, science does employ a jargon, most professions do, and the words do not always fit the layman's vocabulary. Hypothesis is one of those words.
"Is Armamis' definition a dictionary definition" - Pretty close really, but he was aiming for a layman's definition. My handiest dictionary has this as one definition (bracket notes mine) "An assumption (synonym of conjecture) or assumptions provisionally accepted (survived peer review, fits the available data), especially as a basis for further investigation (and is worthy of testing)." Really quite spot on to Aramis' I'd say.
"Conjecture? No, a hypothesis is not a conjecture at all" - Yes. Conjecture, another synonym of Hypothesis. A hypothesis IS conjecture.
"Worthy of testing" - You yourself use "worth testing" in the very sentence you deny Aramis the use of "worth" testing as a measure of a hypothesis. Put it this way: A hypothesis that is found to fail tests is not worth further tests. One that has passed tests is worth further tests, if for no other reason than to independantly validate the other tests. That's peer review isn't it.
And finally...
Put all that together, along with Aramis' previously demonstrated hostility towards the scientific method and the knowledge acquired by it, and the way he phrased the whole thing as if it were fact rather than his opinion or interpretation of fact (which it obviously is) and it's not surprising that I took it as an "anti-science statement". His one sentence is riddled with inaccuracy and opinion, stated as fact when it's not."Disregard previously demonstrated hostility (again I just don't recall it and can't say there was or wasn't), there is none implied or specific in that statement taken at face value. Neither does it seem phrased as fact rather than opinion in that light. And it is not riddled with with inaccuracy as I've shown.
It is easy to see you took it, incorrectly I think, as anti-science and even personally, based largely if not solely on prejudice developed from previous encounters, which to my mind is not very open minded. Understandable sure, forgivable certainly, even expected to a degree. It's still not that acceptable when you go on about it and respond with personal attacks. Yes personal attacks. At least to the mind of a few, including the one they were directed to. You don't seem to see it though, and yet I get the strong feeling you felt personally attacked by Aramis' statement where I don't see it.
I'm worried for your calm friend, and your continued good presence here on CotI. You need to take a step back, a deep breath, and count to 10 after some of these "trigger posts" I've seen you reply to here lately. They aren't really out to get you or science as much as you seem to imagine. Not that I've seen here lately at least. Out there elsewhere, daily in the news, and in a now defunct forum here, yes. There are ignorant savages that Darwinism should have culled ages ago but for the fact that science keeps saving them in spite of themselves, because that's how science works. That's one of the ironies of life that I detest and yet still find amusing. I pray to God that science wins the tussle and eventually finds a permanent cure for them all.*
* just more irony, so thickly knotted you might need Alexander himself to cut through it smile.gif
Well, I've taken this far enough off topic. If it's drifted into the realm of "here there be MODERATORS" who devour such posts whole or snack on bits of them then so be it. I'm just trying to help.
To post or not to post? Tough question. Obvious answer though not swiftly reached. Hope it was the right one...
Malenfant
August 11th, 2006, 03:30 AM
Well, I've described how I took what he said as an anti-science slur. Maybe that's not how he intended it, but that's how it came out to me, and I feel entirely justified in taking it that way given his previous attitude. His definition was not remotely carefully considered and nor was it even accurate either. (and again, you're wrong about the jargon. Hypothesis means the same in scientific terms as it does in general english. Claiming otherwise is simply incorrect).
And no, I didn't even remotely "personally attack" him. Unless he's got an incredibly thin skin (which a lot of people here seem to have).
Again though, I have to wonder how a post pointing out a scientific observation yet again devolves into an argument about what science is and how it works, and that was starting even before Aramis came along. And yet again, I realise I'm wasting my time here trying to defend science, and am further discouraged from posting anything about the subject myself. Or about anything at all, for that matter.
Come to think of it, there are better Traveller boards to be on nowadays. I think I'll be spending a lot more time on those boards than on this one from now on. I'm getting tired of putting up with the same old crap from the same people all the time here.
And no, I didn't even remotely "personally attack" him. Unless he's got an incredibly thin skin (which a lot of people here seem to have).
Again though, I have to wonder how a post pointing out a scientific observation yet again devolves into an argument about what science is and how it works, and that was starting even before Aramis came along. And yet again, I realise I'm wasting my time here trying to defend science, and am further discouraged from posting anything about the subject myself. Or about anything at all, for that matter.
Come to think of it, there are better Traveller boards to be on nowadays. I think I'll be spending a lot more time on those boards than on this one from now on. I'm getting tired of putting up with the same old crap from the same people all the time here.
sid6.7
August 11th, 2006, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Nice try. Only problem is that there's no "personal attack" in there at all - you have been and are anti-science, your post was very cynical dig at the scientific process, and that's what I called it as.
But again, it seems to be OK here for you to spout your nonsense about how flawed you think science is, but not OK for me to tell people that you're wrong and show them how you're deliberately misleading people.
You could have explained the difference a hell of a lot better without resorting to your inaccurate "devil's dictionary" version that you posted. But since you have an anti-science agenda you just went ahead and posted your cynical garbage as fact.
I mean, where the hell do you get off by slandering the scientific community and what it does all the time? And why the hell should I sit by and let you do that? I may not be a professional scientist by career anymore, but that doesn't make me any less of a scientist in how I think or act or what I do. So I'll stand up and defend science no matter what, and I'll damn well take it personally when people like you try to slander and undermine it. oTay iam gonna add gas to the "scientific fire" graemlins/file_23.gif
one, i havent understood one thing said
in anyones post about the science stuff
"thank God" :rolleyes:
but i am wondering who made mal the
science discussion police with the
liscense to kill?
i think, mal, your response to aramias
statment shows a deeper animosity towords
aramias then his statement warrented...
it might be time to go cool off somewheres
maybe even avoid repsonding to each others
posts for awhile regardless of content...
Nice try. Only problem is that there's no "personal attack" in there at all - you have been and are anti-science, your post was very cynical dig at the scientific process, and that's what I called it as.
But again, it seems to be OK here for you to spout your nonsense about how flawed you think science is, but not OK for me to tell people that you're wrong and show them how you're deliberately misleading people.
You could have explained the difference a hell of a lot better without resorting to your inaccurate "devil's dictionary" version that you posted. But since you have an anti-science agenda you just went ahead and posted your cynical garbage as fact.
I mean, where the hell do you get off by slandering the scientific community and what it does all the time? And why the hell should I sit by and let you do that? I may not be a professional scientist by career anymore, but that doesn't make me any less of a scientist in how I think or act or what I do. So I'll stand up and defend science no matter what, and I'll damn well take it personally when people like you try to slander and undermine it. oTay iam gonna add gas to the "scientific fire" graemlins/file_23.gif
one, i havent understood one thing said
in anyones post about the science stuff
"thank God" :rolleyes:
but i am wondering who made mal the
science discussion police with the
liscense to kill?
i think, mal, your response to aramias
statment shows a deeper animosity towords
aramias then his statement warrented...
it might be time to go cool off somewheres
maybe even avoid repsonding to each others
posts for awhile regardless of content...
Malenfant
August 11th, 2006, 03:34 AM
And I rest my case, my point proven.
Seeya folks. Have fun making up stuff about science!
Seeya folks. Have fun making up stuff about science!
Border Reiver
August 11th, 2006, 05:18 AM
:rolleyes:
TheEngineer
August 11th, 2006, 05:41 AM
:(
Andrew Boulton
August 11th, 2006, 07:40 AM
Everybody calm down or I'll start Moderating.
ravells
August 11th, 2006, 08:36 AM
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: The big bang.
Moving back to the topic.
I loved Princelian's idea of using this to explain jumpdrives
J-space, then, allows you to "tunnel" through from point to point on that surface without having to go "around," and the deeper you go into the sphere, the faster your trip, even if it's just a few millionths of a degree along the sphere's surface.
The geometry of the INSIDE of that sphere, now, THAT'S a toughie, but we know that you can't exceed J-6 and it always takes a week to tunnel down and back.
I found another explanation which was also really good:
It is now believed that the Universe is large enough that there can be areas A and B that have not been able to exchange light.
This is a result of recent observations that indicate that the rate of the Universe's expansion is speeding up, contrary to what astronomers were expecting a couple of years ago.
Which leads onto this:
The Question
(Submitted June 30, 1997)
I'm a college graduate with a degree in computer science. However, my favorite pastime has always been reading about astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc. that's my background. My question is:
When astronomers speak of the estimated size of the "known Universe", are they setting this distance (from us) based upon the furthest visible object, or upon calculation? This is in reference to the fact that quasars (as far as I know) are the furthest observable objects. Yet they travel at speeds approaching that of light away from us. Obviously, if there was anything further than the distance at which the expansion of the Universe = c, it would be impossible for us to detect it, now or ever. To sum up the question: how can one estimate the size of the Universe if any part of it past this critical distance is forever cut off from our measurement? One could argue that since we cannot ever reach these locations, for us they do not exist, but I think that's a horrible cop-out.
The Answer
What astronomers mean when they speak of the "known Universe" depends on the astronomer. Most often it refers to the region of the Universe from which light could travel to us since shortly after the Big Bang.
The farthest observable discrete objects are the quasars (visible at such great distances because they are so bright). However, the cosmic microwave background radiation, at 3 degrees Kelvin, comes from even further away. It has a redshift of about 1000, and comes from the time when the Universe was much smaller, and filled with hot ionized gas (plasma) at 3000 Kelvin, as hot as the surface of some stars. Dense plasma blocks light, and so we cannot see anything beyond that distance.
If the theory known as "inflation" is true, the size of the "known Universe" is much smaller than that of the Universe as a whole. If you look at the "known Universe", every part of it looks about the same, as far as we can tell. As an analogy, if you look at a typical cornfield in Kansas, it all looks the same as far as the eye can see. For there to be as much variety as you would expect in a world, the world has to be much larger than the size of a Kansas cornfield. Likewise, inflation says that the Universe is much larger than the known Universe.
How much larger is hard to determine, and theories are untrustworthy since we can never confirm them by observations. (Actually, 'never' is a bit of an overstatement. If you waited long enough, the Universe would slow its expansion and you may be able to see a bit further. But that would take billions of years.)
All taken from here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970630c.html
Moving back to the topic.
I loved Princelian's idea of using this to explain jumpdrives
J-space, then, allows you to "tunnel" through from point to point on that surface without having to go "around," and the deeper you go into the sphere, the faster your trip, even if it's just a few millionths of a degree along the sphere's surface.
The geometry of the INSIDE of that sphere, now, THAT'S a toughie, but we know that you can't exceed J-6 and it always takes a week to tunnel down and back.
I found another explanation which was also really good:
It is now believed that the Universe is large enough that there can be areas A and B that have not been able to exchange light.
This is a result of recent observations that indicate that the rate of the Universe's expansion is speeding up, contrary to what astronomers were expecting a couple of years ago.
Which leads onto this:
The Question
(Submitted June 30, 1997)
I'm a college graduate with a degree in computer science. However, my favorite pastime has always been reading about astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc. that's my background. My question is:
When astronomers speak of the estimated size of the "known Universe", are they setting this distance (from us) based upon the furthest visible object, or upon calculation? This is in reference to the fact that quasars (as far as I know) are the furthest observable objects. Yet they travel at speeds approaching that of light away from us. Obviously, if there was anything further than the distance at which the expansion of the Universe = c, it would be impossible for us to detect it, now or ever. To sum up the question: how can one estimate the size of the Universe if any part of it past this critical distance is forever cut off from our measurement? One could argue that since we cannot ever reach these locations, for us they do not exist, but I think that's a horrible cop-out.
The Answer
What astronomers mean when they speak of the "known Universe" depends on the astronomer. Most often it refers to the region of the Universe from which light could travel to us since shortly after the Big Bang.
The farthest observable discrete objects are the quasars (visible at such great distances because they are so bright). However, the cosmic microwave background radiation, at 3 degrees Kelvin, comes from even further away. It has a redshift of about 1000, and comes from the time when the Universe was much smaller, and filled with hot ionized gas (plasma) at 3000 Kelvin, as hot as the surface of some stars. Dense plasma blocks light, and so we cannot see anything beyond that distance.
If the theory known as "inflation" is true, the size of the "known Universe" is much smaller than that of the Universe as a whole. If you look at the "known Universe", every part of it looks about the same, as far as we can tell. As an analogy, if you look at a typical cornfield in Kansas, it all looks the same as far as the eye can see. For there to be as much variety as you would expect in a world, the world has to be much larger than the size of a Kansas cornfield. Likewise, inflation says that the Universe is much larger than the known Universe.
How much larger is hard to determine, and theories are untrustworthy since we can never confirm them by observations. (Actually, 'never' is a bit of an overstatement. If you waited long enough, the Universe would slow its expansion and you may be able to see a bit further. But that would take billions of years.)
All taken from here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970630c.html
princelian
August 11th, 2006, 11:23 AM
I would have to say, ravs, that if it is true that the universe is larger than can see, that all of the theories about the universe expanding or contracting, and the theories about the origin of the universe, are called into question.
I'll try to illustrate what I'm trying to say (poorly; I'm a physical chemist, not an astrophysicist, although I certainly have a great interest in astrophysics).
If you grew up in a tribe on a desert island far removed from the rest of the world, and in a part of the ocean where the currents and weather made it unlikely you'll ever see any other living creature, you would make certain assumptions on how the world works. The ocean is infinitely deep (except near the island) and infinitely wide. It also occasionally eats members of your tribe, whether by weather, accident, or pointy-toothed fishes.
The highest point of the island is a few hundred meters, so the world is mostly flat.
It's always warm except during storms, and then it's warm again.
Food always grows, year-round. Fish are always there.
This is the universe, as perceived by the tribesmen. They have no concept - cannot HAVE a concept - of mountains. Of snow. Of forests that aren't tropical plants.
Conifers? What are those?
So it might be with the universe. We see 13.6 billion LY in all directions but what's 13.7 billion LY away? Actually, we can see beyond that distance indirectly, because we could - if we're clever enough - see the gravitational effects on distant objects that are coming from even more distant objects. It's hard to get parallax at that distance, though, so it'd have to be some pretty massive gravity sources.
But even indirectly, there's a finite limit to how far we can see, and maybe *just* beyond that is a mountain. Or snow. Or types of stars that we've never even conceived of. Or living galaxies that are waving at us but we can't see it. (Okay, I've stepped beyond sci-fi to fantasy, sorry.)
The point is that if the universe is larger than we can perceive, we can't really characterize anything but the "local" universe. (Strange indeed to call 4.2 billion parsecs "local," but, well, the universe is BIG.)
I'll try to illustrate what I'm trying to say (poorly; I'm a physical chemist, not an astrophysicist, although I certainly have a great interest in astrophysics).
If you grew up in a tribe on a desert island far removed from the rest of the world, and in a part of the ocean where the currents and weather made it unlikely you'll ever see any other living creature, you would make certain assumptions on how the world works. The ocean is infinitely deep (except near the island) and infinitely wide. It also occasionally eats members of your tribe, whether by weather, accident, or pointy-toothed fishes.
The highest point of the island is a few hundred meters, so the world is mostly flat.
It's always warm except during storms, and then it's warm again.
Food always grows, year-round. Fish are always there.
This is the universe, as perceived by the tribesmen. They have no concept - cannot HAVE a concept - of mountains. Of snow. Of forests that aren't tropical plants.
Conifers? What are those?
So it might be with the universe. We see 13.6 billion LY in all directions but what's 13.7 billion LY away? Actually, we can see beyond that distance indirectly, because we could - if we're clever enough - see the gravitational effects on distant objects that are coming from even more distant objects. It's hard to get parallax at that distance, though, so it'd have to be some pretty massive gravity sources.
But even indirectly, there's a finite limit to how far we can see, and maybe *just* beyond that is a mountain. Or snow. Or types of stars that we've never even conceived of. Or living galaxies that are waving at us but we can't see it. (Okay, I've stepped beyond sci-fi to fantasy, sorry.)
The point is that if the universe is larger than we can perceive, we can't really characterize anything but the "local" universe. (Strange indeed to call 4.2 billion parsecs "local," but, well, the universe is BIG.)
ravells
August 11th, 2006, 12:55 PM
Nice analogy!
I think what the physicist is trying to say is that at one time (n billion years ago), light from any part of the universe could reach any other part of the universe, but if inflation theory is right then now (n billion years on) space in the far reaches of the universe is being created at a rate faster than the speed of light, so that anything beyond it is outside our realm of causality.
If this is true there must be a point on that edge where if you were observed from here, your image would never, ever change as you would be travelling away from earth at the speed of light!
How cool would that be? Immortality! Well at least as far as your observers are concerned.
Ravs
I think what the physicist is trying to say is that at one time (n billion years ago), light from any part of the universe could reach any other part of the universe, but if inflation theory is right then now (n billion years on) space in the far reaches of the universe is being created at a rate faster than the speed of light, so that anything beyond it is outside our realm of causality.
If this is true there must be a point on that edge where if you were observed from here, your image would never, ever change as you would be travelling away from earth at the speed of light!
How cool would that be? Immortality! Well at least as far as your observers are concerned.
Ravs
RainOfSteel
August 11th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: The big bang.tongue.gif
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: The big bang.tongue.gif
parmasson
August 11th, 2006, 06:41 PM
Ok so from a “practical� (ahem ;) ) point of view there is no edge to the universe. If I suffer the misjump of all misjumps that bounces me to the Edge there is no edge?
aramis
August 11th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Several theorists argue that you would, as on the sphere, come back around to where you started.
Others postulate that, should you be able to reach the "edge of the Universe" you would simply find that there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, but the glow of the universe leaked out into the absolute void.
Still others postulate that it's a boundary which would bounce you back like a "Space Mirror" from S&S...
Others postulate that, should you be able to reach the "edge of the Universe" you would simply find that there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, but the glow of the universe leaked out into the absolute void.
Still others postulate that it's a boundary which would bounce you back like a "Space Mirror" from S&S...
Anthony
August 11th, 2006, 08:15 PM
Current theory suggests that the universe is infinite and apparently flat.
Maladominus
August 11th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Anthony:
Current theory suggests that the universe is infinite and apparently flat. I subscribe to the lesser-known theory that the universe looks more like a bagel.
Current theory suggests that the universe is infinite and apparently flat. I subscribe to the lesser-known theory that the universe looks more like a bagel.
sid6.7
August 12th, 2006, 01:06 AM
i'm for the infinite in all directions belief
in other words NO END NO WAY NO HOW.... :D
in other words NO END NO WAY NO HOW.... :D
Icosahedron
August 12th, 2006, 03:04 AM
There are almost as many predictions for the shape and size of the universe as there are astronomers. Mainly because this is where hypotheses really do verge on guesses. We simply cannot test them out there, and the further out you go the worse it gets because one set of calculations depends on the validity of a previous set made on objects closer in, and every calculation made has an error margin that allows for a somewhat different end result. Acceptable hypotheses are extrapolated from within the error margins of previous calculations.
Of course, all this is purely academic in the Traveller Universe, where even the most determined adventurer, changing ships in a 'pony express' relay, is limited to only a few tens of thousands of light years in a human lifetime!
You couldn't even get out of our paltry galaxy.
You want an 'end of the universe' feel in Traveller? Just misjump into intergalactic space - it'll make rift areas seem quite cosmopolitan!
Of course, all this is purely academic in the Traveller Universe, where even the most determined adventurer, changing ships in a 'pony express' relay, is limited to only a few tens of thousands of light years in a human lifetime!
You couldn't even get out of our paltry galaxy.
You want an 'end of the universe' feel in Traveller? Just misjump into intergalactic space - it'll make rift areas seem quite cosmopolitan!
Gaming Glen
August 12th, 2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
You want an 'end of the universe' feel in Traveller? Just misjump into intergalactic space - it'll make rift areas seem quite cosmopolitan! But isn't that where *shudder* the colossal space dragons live? :D
And they wonder what dark matter really is. :rolleyes: Well, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. graemlins/file_21.gif
You want an 'end of the universe' feel in Traveller? Just misjump into intergalactic space - it'll make rift areas seem quite cosmopolitan! But isn't that where *shudder* the colossal space dragons live? :D
And they wonder what dark matter really is. :rolleyes: Well, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. graemlins/file_21.gif
Maladominus
August 13th, 2006, 04:56 AM
"Here there be Dagons!"
- says the map of uncharted space
- says the map of uncharted space
MJD
August 13th, 2006, 06:28 AM
Oh look. I come to COTI to see what's new and nothing has changed. A discussion of cosmology has become an argument about the meaning of words used in a post. Again.
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times.
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times.
Jame
August 13th, 2006, 10:12 AM
It's because of one person ruining it. It's a shame, too, because I like sciencey stuff, even though most of it's further beyond me than I want...
TheEngineer
August 13th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Well, I would say that was a personal thing and folks is back on (a philosophical) track smile.gif
RainOfSteel
August 13th, 2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by MJD:
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times. I would like to hope that both this topic and this problem in general will not be considered as the entirety of what is happening on Citizens of the Imperium.
There are plenty of other topics where fun things are going on.
Look at the PBP forums. There's an excellent source of activity that wasn't present a few months ago.
And there is the new Wiki, too.
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times. I would like to hope that both this topic and this problem in general will not be considered as the entirety of what is happening on Citizens of the Imperium.
There are plenty of other topics where fun things are going on.
Look at the PBP forums. There's an excellent source of activity that wasn't present a few months ago.
And there is the new Wiki, too.
Black Globe Generator
August 13th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by MJD:
Oh look. I come to COTI to see what's new and nothing has changed. A discussion of cosmology has become an argument about the meaning of words used in a post. Again.
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times. This really frosts my balls.
Mr. Thomas' chronic incivility should've been dealt with a long time ago, but instead it was allowed to fester. I think tarring with a broad brush the many CotI members who are able to disagree without resorting to insults is wholly out-of-line.
Oh look. I come to COTI to see what's new and nothing has changed. A discussion of cosmology has become an argument about the meaning of words used in a post. Again.
This is becoming as generally useless as TML is most times. This really frosts my balls.
Mr. Thomas' chronic incivility should've been dealt with a long time ago, but instead it was allowed to fester. I think tarring with a broad brush the many CotI members who are able to disagree without resorting to insults is wholly out-of-line.
MJD
August 13th, 2006, 03:14 PM
Yeah, and you've lectured me at some length about how all that was my fault, how I had a duty to moderate COTI just the way you wanted me to because I happened to have been given an admin status I didn't want. You've told me how COTI is so vital to my business that I should waste work-time moderating the boards. (You're wrong. If you were sitting where I am you'd know why, but I don't feel obliged to explain).
If I'd been doing what you wanted, BGG, I'd have booted you a while back - from where I was sitting at the time you were the one displaying chronic incivility.
So you have an axe to grind about how I didn't mod the boards the way you wanted.
Come live my life and you'll see why.
But anyway. My post was an expression of how wearisome I find these endless arguments - in which, I notice, the bad guy is always the fellow with a different viewpoint from that of whoever is posting.
I felt like commenting on the general stupidity of this sort of pointless argument, so I did.
If I'd been doing what you wanted, BGG, I'd have booted you a while back - from where I was sitting at the time you were the one displaying chronic incivility.
So you have an axe to grind about how I didn't mod the boards the way you wanted.
Come live my life and you'll see why.
But anyway. My post was an expression of how wearisome I find these endless arguments - in which, I notice, the bad guy is always the fellow with a different viewpoint from that of whoever is posting.
I felt like commenting on the general stupidity of this sort of pointless argument, so I did.
Malenfant
August 13th, 2006, 03:38 PM
First, it's Dr. Thomas. Though apparently education means nothing on this board anymore (if it ever did), since people seem to think that their opinions are more valid than fact, and that ignorance is better than knowledge.
There's so much noise and so little signal here because people who know little about a subject, or who think they know about a subject but don't really know much at all, are posting their opinions as if they were facts. Here's a hint: people are asking questions because they want a knowledgeable, informed answer - and if you can't given them that then don't say anything at all. All the crap on this thread started because Aramis posted his own (factually incorrect) opinion of how a hypothesis is really defined when it wasn't anything of the sort. And nothing riles me up more than ignorant people claiming their ill-informed or misguided opinions or assumptions are facts. (BTW, though "ignorant" is often taken as an insult, it really isn't. It just means that you're unaware or uneducated about a subject.)
I'll be the first to admit that communicating online isn't as easy as doing it in person. I tend to think of online discussions as if they were real face-to-face conversations. And in a real conversation, people who don't know much about a subject usually listen to and defer to those who do know about it. That's how they learn. Maybe it's harder to do this online, but the sense I get from people on CotI nowadays is that people think that all opinions on a subject are valid - well, that's not true, especially with science. Science is based on fact and observation, not on opinion. If those facts contradict your opinion, then your opinion on the subject isn't valid and is incorrect, and that's that. When the flaws in people's opinions are pointed out online though (at least, on CotI) they seem to take it personally and refuse to accept it. Well, sorry, but I really don't care how attached you are to your opinion - if it's wrong, it's wrong. As for elaboration and further explanation by all means, but don't make out that you're right when you're not. Accept that, learn the facts, and be more educated about the subject. I know it may kill discussion somewhat to be told the facts, but that's how it should work.
But instead all I see are ignorant people touting opinions as if they were facts, and making claims about subjects they know little about, so much so that any knowledgeable voices are just lost in the noise, if not shouted down completely. It's as if some people are actually threatened by superior knowledge and education about a subject here (and funnily enough, every single one of the people who respond this way are Americans. This implies to me that there is something seriously screwed up with the US education system).
Second, you're hardly one to talk about "incivility", BGG. You've been obsessively and freakishly stalking me for quite some time (to the point of counting the days that I've been here and then sending me a PM to tell me that?? Get a life and seek professional help!), and you've gone out of your way to be incredibly insulting and aggressive to me all the time (and let me remind you that it was because of your vicious "call out" outburst that we had Moderators appointed here) based on some perceived slight. And you've hypocritically tried to paint yourself in this saintly light even while you're being put down by Martin and other mods. And I know that hasn't gone down well with them (EDIT: and I see MJD's told you so already).
So don't give me or anyone else here any crap about how much better you are than anyone else here, because you really aren't.
Anyway, this is pretty much all I have to say about the subject. I know it'll fall on deaf ears though, which is why I'm no longer going to be available to answer science questions or post science topics on this board.
There's so much noise and so little signal here because people who know little about a subject, or who think they know about a subject but don't really know much at all, are posting their opinions as if they were facts. Here's a hint: people are asking questions because they want a knowledgeable, informed answer - and if you can't given them that then don't say anything at all. All the crap on this thread started because Aramis posted his own (factually incorrect) opinion of how a hypothesis is really defined when it wasn't anything of the sort. And nothing riles me up more than ignorant people claiming their ill-informed or misguided opinions or assumptions are facts. (BTW, though "ignorant" is often taken as an insult, it really isn't. It just means that you're unaware or uneducated about a subject.)
I'll be the first to admit that communicating online isn't as easy as doing it in person. I tend to think of online discussions as if they were real face-to-face conversations. And in a real conversation, people who don't know much about a subject usually listen to and defer to those who do know about it. That's how they learn. Maybe it's harder to do this online, but the sense I get from people on CotI nowadays is that people think that all opinions on a subject are valid - well, that's not true, especially with science. Science is based on fact and observation, not on opinion. If those facts contradict your opinion, then your opinion on the subject isn't valid and is incorrect, and that's that. When the flaws in people's opinions are pointed out online though (at least, on CotI) they seem to take it personally and refuse to accept it. Well, sorry, but I really don't care how attached you are to your opinion - if it's wrong, it's wrong. As for elaboration and further explanation by all means, but don't make out that you're right when you're not. Accept that, learn the facts, and be more educated about the subject. I know it may kill discussion somewhat to be told the facts, but that's how it should work.
But instead all I see are ignorant people touting opinions as if they were facts, and making claims about subjects they know little about, so much so that any knowledgeable voices are just lost in the noise, if not shouted down completely. It's as if some people are actually threatened by superior knowledge and education about a subject here (and funnily enough, every single one of the people who respond this way are Americans. This implies to me that there is something seriously screwed up with the US education system).
Second, you're hardly one to talk about "incivility", BGG. You've been obsessively and freakishly stalking me for quite some time (to the point of counting the days that I've been here and then sending me a PM to tell me that?? Get a life and seek professional help!), and you've gone out of your way to be incredibly insulting and aggressive to me all the time (and let me remind you that it was because of your vicious "call out" outburst that we had Moderators appointed here) based on some perceived slight. And you've hypocritically tried to paint yourself in this saintly light even while you're being put down by Martin and other mods. And I know that hasn't gone down well with them (EDIT: and I see MJD's told you so already).
So don't give me or anyone else here any crap about how much better you are than anyone else here, because you really aren't.
Anyway, this is pretty much all I have to say about the subject. I know it'll fall on deaf ears though, which is why I'm no longer going to be available to answer science questions or post science topics on this board.
mike wightman
August 13th, 2006, 03:51 PM
And that really is the last word on this subject.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét