APOD: Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1073 (2012 Feb 20)

[geckzilla]

Space is curved. Perhaps light can travel in different ways that we don't understand. Your entrenched in your belief and i in mine and so the challenge is to try to see who is right. i have no knowledge to prove that i am right but only a gut feeling. You scientist used to say that nobody could go faster than the speed of sound but that was proved wrong. So will your assertions about light speed be proved wrong also.

Gut feelings are about as useful as tits on a bull. Just sayin'. No one can argue with you because you are too ignorant to argue with. Just... think about that, for a moment. It's not meant as an insult.

Try going to the classroom.

[Chris Peterson]

You scientist used to say that nobody could go faster than the speed of sound but that was proved wrong.

There was never a scientific view that "nobody could go faster than the speed of sound". For as long as scientists have understood the concept, it has been known that bodies could exceed the speed of sound, and examples were known. This claim is as fallacious as the one that suggests scientists thought the Earth was flat.

[neufer]

You scientist used to say that nobody could go faster than the speed of sound but that was proved wrong.

There was never a scientific view that "nobody could go faster than the speed of sound". For as long as scientists have understood the concept, it has been known that bodies could exceed the speed of sound, and examples were known. This claim is as fallacious as the one that suggests scientists thought the Earth was flat.

[Chris Peterson]

The concept of a "sound barrier" didn't even come about until aircraft started running into problems when they (or parts of them) approached the speed of sound. The "barrier" refers to an engineering problem, not any scientific misunderstanding.

[Chris Evans]

Here is an article that describes that some scientist were fooled by complex theory that was proved wrong later. (Emphasis mine)

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... rrier.html


A brief history of the sound barrier
The term "sound barrier" originates from a comment made in 1935 by the British aerodynamicist William F. Hilton while speaking to a reporter about his high-speed experimental work at the National Physical Laboratory in England. Pointing to a plot of airfoil drag, Hilton said: "the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against high speed as we approach the speed of sound." His commented was misinterpreted by the press at the time to mean that there a real physical barrier that would prevent any aircraft from traveling at the speed of sound or going beyond it. Also, some theoretical work had been carried out which suggested that the pressure exerted on a body as it neared Mach 1 would rise without limit, so that the drag would make it impossible to break through the barrier. This theory, however, turned out to rest of faulty assumptions that were not valid at transonic speeds.

[Chris Peterson]

Here is an article that describes that some scientist were fooled by complex theory that was proved wrong later. (Emphasis mine)

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... rrier.html

Did you read the article? It doesn't say that scientists were fooled. Quite the opposite, it says what I pointed out before: there was never a scientific consensus that the speed of sound represented any physical barrier. The fact that one or two scientists worked with a theory that turned out to be wrong doesn't change anything- that happens all the time. The vast majority of more speculative theory, which goes against the consensus viewpoint, turns out to be wrong. The consensus view usually turn out to be right. This is as you'd expect.

[geckzilla]

Why is it that sometimes people seem to speak of scientists as if being a scientist is something bad? If you think all the current scientists are wrong, don't you have to become a scientist yourself to prove them wrong?

[neufer]

Why is it that sometimes people seem to speak of scientists as if being a scientist is something bad?

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 49#p166847

[bystander]

Why is it that sometimes people seem to speak of scientists as if being a scientist is something bad? If you think all the current scientists are wrong, don't you have to become a scientist yourself to prove them wrong?

No, here is a partial list of things you can use that don't involve science.

[Chris Peterson]

Why is it that sometimes people seem to speak of scientists as if being a scientist is something bad? If you think all the current scientists are wrong, don't you have to become a scientist yourself to prove them wrong?

Some people experience a sort of schadenfreude when scientists are wrong. They actively hope that scientists will be wrong- the more the better, and therefore they rally against consensus viewpoints.

Of course, in doing this, they demonstrate a poor understanding both of science and of scientists.

[Wolf kotenberg]

Wow, things are getting heated here. I remember an individual named Harry, from Australia, who was also enjoying throwing rocks in this lake.

[Woilf Kotenberg]

The sound barrier was known long before airplanes got close to it. Did you ever notice propeller blades on the FW190D and the TA152h were very wide ? My father ( rest in peace dad ) was an engineer at Focke Wulf and they encontered major efficiency drops at high RPM's. Those JUMOs put out some serious power. My father explained to me the solution was wide blades , smaller diameter.

[Chris Peterson]

The sound barrier was known long before airplanes got close to it. Did you ever notice propeller blades on the FW190D and the TA152h were very wide ? My father ( rest in peace dad ) was an engineer at Focke Wulf and they encontered major efficiency drops at high RPM's. Those JUMOs put out some serious power. My father explained to me the solution was wide blades , smaller diameter.

And long before there were airplanes, there was artillery capable of exceeding the speed of sound, not to mention the fact that meteors were known to do so.

[Beyond]

Don't forget photons. Those little critters not only travel faster than sound, but come close to the light barrier. I suppose IF photons started going faster than the speed of light, it would be 'lights-out' for mankind????

[Christopher Evans]

Hey people,

Take it easy, nobody is saying that anybody is bad. Just consider that the theory of light speed could be incomplete. Some young punk will prove that someday probably. But, he will have to go against the establishment. No theory is set in concrete, they have to be open to be improved upon as new data and ideas take place. There is nothing sacred about light speed. All knowledge is subject to opinion of the holder unfortunately and we are all predjudice to our own way of thinking.

Here i have to point out Tesla, who was told that an AC motor was impossible to build in college. But you can see what we have today.

Have a good day. Do something good today. Try to save it.

[Chris Evans]

Keep working on your theories with new data coming in you might be surprised that the universe is infinitely vast and never to be understood completely.

[rstevenson]

All knowledge is subject to opinion of the holder unfortunately and we are all predjudice to our own way of thinking.

Scientificly based knowledge is never "subject to opinion of the holder". Science is varifiable. Of course it's also never complete, but that's what makes it interesting.

Rob
[ My spelling should be "varifiable" too.]

[geckzilla]

Evans, I don't think there's any scientist out there who wouldn't want any amazing thing like that to be proven, but you sound pretty cavalier. It's rather insulting.

[Chris Peterson]

There is nothing sacred about light speed.

There is nothing "sacred" about anything.

All knowledge is subject to opinion of the holder unfortunately and we are all predjudice to our own way of thinking.

Knowledge is unrelated to opinion. Yes, as individuals we are subject to our internal prejudices. But scientific knowledge is not. It advances in one direction only, always towards a greater understanding of what might be called "truth". The power of the scientific approach comes precisely from the fact that it isn't subject to the whims of individual interpretation.

Here i have to point out Tesla, who was told that an AC motor was impossible to build in college. But you can see what we have today.

This is as irrelevant as your observation regarding the sound barrier. You are again discussing an engineering problem, not a scientific one.

[Chris Peterson]

Keep working on your theories with new data coming in you might be surprised that the universe is infinitely vast and never to be understood completely.

My feeling is just the opposite. The more we learn, the more we realize that the Universe is fundamentally simple and easy to understand. I think that within a century or two there will be no more science- we will totally understand the laws of physics, and fully know how things work. Scientific knowledge will be complete.

Of course, just as an artist can completely understand her simple medium (a box of crayons, perhaps), the number of unique pieces of art that can be created is infinite. We can live in a Universe that is both fundamentally simple and at the same time infinitely complex. But once we understand the underlying rules, the infinite complexity becomes a subject for philosophers and engineers, not scientists (as the term now applies).

[neufer]

Keep working on your theories with new data coming in you might be surprised that the universe is infinitely vast and never to be understood completely.

My feeling is just the opposite. The more we learn, the more we realize that the Universe is fundamentally simple and easy to understand. I think that within a century or two there will be no more science- we will totally understand the laws of physics, and fully know how things work. Scientific knowledge will be complete. Of course, just as an artist can completely understand her simple medium (a box of crayons, perhaps), the number of unique pieces of art that can be created is infinite. We can live in a Universe that is both fundamentally simple and at the same time infinitely complex. But once we understand the underlying rules, the infinite complexity becomes a subject for philosophers and engineers, not scientists (as the term now applies).

http://tinyurl.com/7epd8zd

[Case]

http://tinyurl.com/7epd8zd

Thanks for the link, Art. What a learned, interesting and even entertaining professor Richard Feynman was, as well as a great scientist.

[Case]

The more we learn, the more we realize that the Universe is fundamentally simple and easy to understand. I think that within a century or two there will be no more science- we will totally understand the laws of physics, and fully know how things work. Scientific knowledge will be complete.

That's a bold statement.
While many discoveries, scientific theories and new laws of physics extend our current understanding of the Universe, it also seems like every new discovery brings about at least a tenfold of new questions and weird results that defy current understandings. Do you see a convergence to completeness that makes the the new unknowns easier to solve than previous ones and/or less important and/or fewer of them in the future? When you say "scientific knowledge will be complete", is that referring to the Grand Unified Theory?
Kind of depressing to think that there will be a time, not too far from today, when many theoretical physicists will be out of a job because there's little left to do for them.

[neufer]

http://tinyurl.com/7epd8zd

Thanks for the link, Art. What a learned, interesting and even entertaining professor Richard Feynman was, as well as a great scientist.

There's more:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=3|||
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5le9sYdYkM

[Chris Peterson]

The more we learn, the more we realize that the Universe is fundamentally simple and easy to understand. I think that within a century or two there will be no more science- we will totally understand the laws of physics, and fully know how things work. Scientific knowledge will be complete.

That's a bold statement.
While many discoveries, scientific theories and new laws of physics extend our current understanding of the Universe, it also seems like every new discovery brings about at least a tenfold of new questions and weird results that defy current understandings. Do you see a convergence to completeness that makes the the new unknowns easier to solve than previous ones and/or less important and/or fewer of them in the future?

I don't see each new discovery bringing new questions... at least, not new fundamental questions. More like details that need to be filled in. And yes, there is a kind of convergence, in that the rate of knowledge accumulation is increasing- loosely, I'd describe it as exponential. I think we now have an accurate broad understanding of nearly everything, and a deep understanding of much.

When you say "scientific knowledge will be complete", is that referring to the Grand Unified Theory?

Assuming there is one, then yes.

Kind of depressing to think that there will be a time, not too far from today, when many theoretical physicists will be out of a job because there's little left to do for them.

I don't think it's sad. All that will happen is a shift from figuring out the basic laws to figuring out how they apply to what we see, and how we can use them. Those things are every bit as intellectually challenging and creative.