Starship Asterisk*

topic split from http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 31&t=20251

I have read breaking news in cosmology for years, This is why i am so skeptic. Breaking news is tomorrow's old news.

You see News, that a proton is not as they say it is, And in the next breath expect me to believe the facts about a 12 billion light year quasar. Things change, to fast. And i think they always will.

tc

swainy wrote:You see News, that a proton is not as they say it is, And in the next breath expect me to believe the facts about a 12 billion light year quasar.

Why does this disappoint you? Science is a process of learning. If nothing in our understanding of the universe changed, then that would mean we were learning nothing.

As for the quasar announcement vs the proton announcement, you're conflating two different kinds of remarks. One says, "This is what we know so far..." and the other says, "Look what we've found. It's interesting and may change things...." There's no reason to feel betrayed or annoyed or confused by these statements appearing at about the same time. They're both legitimate statements to make. And they're both interesting, if for different reasons.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:Why does this disappoint you? Science is a process of learning. If nothing in our understanding of the universe changed, then that would mean we were learning nothing.

As what i have seen, you are correct. We must say, we think we are learning. but maybe NOT!

tc

swainy wrote:I have read breaking news in cosmology for years, This is why i am so skeptic. Breaking news is tomorrow's old news.

Well, that's kind of the definition of news, isn't it?

You see News, that a proton is not as they say it is, And in the next breath expect me to believe the facts about a 12 billion light year quasar.

The proton story is about new science. It's odd, unexpected, and largely unverified. It may turn out to be important, or it may fall by the wayside as some sort of instrumental or analytical error. It's interesting, but skepticism is in order.

This story is very different. No new science, no new theory, nothing to stop being correct tomorrow. This is just an observation. It has a simple, widely accepted explanation based on solid theory that is very unlikely to change (or change significantly). It is pretty certain that the explanation for this image will be the same 1000 years from now.

Chris Peterson wrote:This story is very different. No new science, no new theory, nothing to stop being correct tomorrow. This is just an observation. It has a simple, widely accepted explanation based on solid theory that is very unlikely to change (or change significantly). It is pretty certain that the explanation for this image will be the same 1000 years from now.

Incorrect. in 20 years time, your story will be embarrassing. You Know I Know?

tc

swainy wrote:Incorrect. in 20 years time, your story will be embarrassing. You Know I Know?

We'll see. But I doubt it. General Relativity is here to stay. And the history of science teaches us that theories get better, closer to the truth, and last longer as time passes.

The likelihood of a new theory explaining gravitational lensing appearing in 20 years is extremely small (as is the likelihood of such a theory ever appearing).

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy wrote:Incorrect. in 20 years time, your story will be embarrassing. You Know I Know?

We'll see. But I doubt it. General Relativity is here to stay. And the history of science teaches us that theories get better, closer to the truth, and last longer as time passes.

The likelihood of a new theory explaining gravitational lensing appearing in 20 years is extremely small (as is the likelihood of such a theory ever appearing).

Chris: I have seen things, I can not explain. I am as rational as you. I see something I question it. But these things I have seen, I was not on my own, the folks I was with also saw these things I can not explain. I saw these things with my own eyes. And as I consider myself an amateur scientist I must try debunk these things I saw. But I can't. These things were right in front of me. Not 12 billion light years away. You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.

tc

swainy wrote:You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.

I think I have quite a good understanding of gravity. The observation of gravitational lenses is one of the (many) things that support our theory of gravity.

I don't think there is more to the Universe than we can consider. I think the Universe is a fairly simple thing, and that we are capable of understanding it at a deep level. In fact, I think we've made a lot of progress towards that understanding. The fact that we haven't figured out all of it, or that some very important pieces are still missing, doesn't mean we have reason to doubt the parts that we have figured out.

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy wrote:You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.

I think I have quite a good understanding of gravity. The observation of gravitational lenses is one of the (many) things that support our theory of gravity.

I don't think there is more to the Universe than we can consider. I think the Universe is a fairly simple thing, and that we are capable of understanding it at a deep level. In fact, I think we've made a lot of progress towards that understanding. The fact that we haven't figured out all of it, or that some very important pieces are still missing, doesn't mean we have reason to doubt the parts that we have figured out.

Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?

Question 2: What Created Mass?

Question 3: What is 95% of the universe made of?

Question 4: Does there need to be a Question 4 ?

tc

swainy wrote:Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?

Because with higher energies, we can probe more elusive particles.

Question 2: What Created Mass?

The question is meaningless. Mass is simply a property of energy in certain forms.

Question 3: What is 95% of the universe made of?

Another meaningless question.

Question 4: Does there need to be a Question 4 ?

I don't know, does there? The questions you are asking don't seem to be very well constructed. Proper scientific questions should have a form that is both answerable, and when answered increases knowledge.

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy wrote:Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?

Because with higher energies, we can probe more elusive particles.

Question 2: What Created Mass?

The question is meaningless. Mass is simply a property of energy in certain forms.

Question 3: What is 95% of the universe made of?

Another meaningless question.

Question 4: Does there need to be a Question 4 ?

I don't know, does there? The questions you are asking don't seem to be very well constructed. Proper scientific questions should have a form that is both answerable, and when answered increases knowledge.

Incorrect: check this Out:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/Kri ... rson.shtml

The answer you was looking for was, I have no Idea Mark

swainy wrote:Incorrect: check this Out:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/Kri ... rson.shtml

The answer you was looking for was, I have no Idea Mark

No, Mark, I'll stick by my answers. Not a single one of the questions you asked is answered in the reference you provided. In fact, none of the questions you asked are even addressed by the reference.

No need Chris,

Because you can,t answer them with any plausible reasoning.

JD I'd say.

tc

There you go Chris:
What Is The LHC Looking For?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/large- ... lider1.htm

tc

swainy wrote:There you go Chris:
What Is The LHC Looking For?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/large- ... lider1.htm

Your point? There's nothing new there.

Yeah, what is your point, and what does it have to do with quasars or gravitational lenses?

Here is something more on what they hope to find at the LHC.

bystander wrote:Yeah, what is your point, and what does it have to do with quasars or gravitational lenses?

Here is something on what they hope to find at the LHC.

For me there is only one question -- why does anything exist?

split to http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 58#p127658

beyond wrote:For me there is only one question -- why does anything exist?

Which is a perfectly fine question, but it is mainly a question for philosophers, not scientists.

The rest of your questions should really be on the original thread.

split to http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 59#p127659

Using Gravitational Lensing to Measure Age and Size of Universe

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/02 ... -universe/

I don't dispute the above. But

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't think there is more to the Universe than we can consider. I think the Universe is a fairly simple thing, and that we are capable of understanding it at a deep level. In fact, I think we've made a lot of progress towards that understanding. The fact that we haven't figured out all of it, or that some very important pieces are still missing, doesn't mean we have reason to doubt the parts that we have figured out.

The Universe is far from simple.

swainy wrote:The Universe is far from simple.

Perhaps. But it seems to me that the more we learn, the simpler and more elegant our models become. Perhaps the Universe is very complex, but I think it is ultimately described by a simple set of theories, well within our understanding.

The fact that we haven't yet learned these simple rules doesn't argue against the Universe being fundamentally simple. I believe a complex Universe would be one where it was almost impossible (or maybe completely impossible) to understand anything.

Chris Peterson wrote:Perhaps the Universe is very complex, but I think it is ultimately described by a simple set of theories, well within our understanding.

That's good of you to say that Chris. The Universe is very complex, for most people. But we are ALL learning. And this will never change.

tc

swainy wrote:The Universe is very complex, for most people. But we are ALL learning. And this will never change.

There is a big difference between "the Universe is complex" and "the Universe is complex for most people". General Relativity involves some very difficult mathematical manipulation, but most physicists would nevertheless consider GR to be a simple and elegant theory. Just because most people will never master tensor calculus does not mean that GR is fundamentally complex. The same can be said for other theories, as well.

In fact, there is no aspect of cosmology or physics (that I understand) that I can't explain in non-quantitative terms to a non-scientist in a few minutes, or in a paragraph or two, that won't convey the fundamentals of that idea in a way they can readily understand. That is one of the things that makes me say the Universe really is simple.

night night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFK1yKfiGo

I Ramble No More.

TC