A nice diagram from here:
|
|
Posted on 01/21/2005 8:45:03 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Interesting read. Thanks.
I've got my own pet theory on the origin of black holes....
I think we'll discover, too late, that every single one of them have all been started whenever some new alien civilization developes a big enough collider. :)
>> Which part?
Every part. Every thing he said is science fiction.
>> It's well-established now that the expansion of the universe is in an acceleration phase.
"Well-established", but still speculation. There is absolutely no proof that red-shift holds-up over millions of light years. When one considers that one of the nearest companion galaxies to our galaxy, Andromeda, is about 2 million light years away, and when one considers that we have no clue how Andromeda changed in the past 2 million years, then one must assume that every predictive theory is, at best, conjecture.
We may not understand gravity, but how is that "apparent" from what Brian Greene said? Brian Greene said that because Einstein's equations imply it. The potential for such runaway expansion was there in the equations--which constitute "our understanding"--all along. I'd say this result tells us that our understanding of gravity was better than we realized.
What's your standard of evidence? There's absolutely no "proof" that your right hand exists; although the evidence might be strong.
The redshift-distance relation holds for standard candles such as Cepheid variables and type-1a supernovae out to cosmological distances. That is some awfully strong evidence.
one must assume that every predictive theory is, at best, conjecture.
Or you could skip that step, and go straight to solipsism.
There can come a time when our understanding requires a complete revision of what we know. When Einstein merged space and time into Minkowski space-time that was the end of Newton. Blame A. Graham Bell, blame Faraday, blame Henry Ford. Einstein did not have the final word, which even he knew. It might be that nobody will ever have the final word, although they are trying to minimize the number of dimensions. Planck is to be launched in 2007, and who knows what it might see beyond what the WMAP has seen?
>> The redshift-distance relation holds for standard candles such as Cepheid variables and type-1a supernovae out to cosmological distances. That is some awfully strong evidence.
There is absolutely no proof. For example, is Andromeda (a nearby galaxy) moving away from our galaxy, or toward it? You have no clue.
>> Or you could skip that step, and go straight to solipsism.
Or, you could admit that astronomy has a history of spouting views that turned out to be science fiction.
Something that's always bugged me is the inverse square law.
Why is it that when the volume of space over which the energy is spread is proportional to the CUBE of the radius, the intensity of the energy is proportional to the SQUARE ?
Kaku has a great sense of humor. He eventually brings Art back to the science he's on the show to promote. Sometimes appearing to agree to the silly stuff prevents being sidetracked.
Brian Greene says that the force that caused inflation and the force now causing acclerating expansion is no more and no less than gravity. Apparently we do not understand gravity, Newton or not.
The expansion force is currently attributed to 'dark energy', which is gravitational 'negative pressure'. Einstein included it in his general relativity field equations as the so-called 'cosmological constant' (he later referred to is as his greatest blunder, but now it's back on the table). Here's a nice link:
If "every predictive theory" is "conjecture", how do you distinguish between science fiction and science theory? Or do you not?
What makes your car go? The expansion of combusted gasses pushing on pistons? Or little invisible demons? Science does not say the latter is impossible, just that the former is vastly more likely.
There's proof supporting "The expansion of combusted gasses pushing on pistons". There's no proof of invisible demons or supernatural Gods pushing pistons, mountains, galaxies or creating universes. Intelligent conscience beings do exist. They have demonstrated a vast ability to understand nature and then control nature. Doing that to benefit self and others. Nothing is unknowable to the conscious mind. Though many things take a great deal of time to understand. Several generations of acquired knowledge. For example, time to acquire knowledge required to build a nuclear reactor.
Fact: conscious beings exist.
Speculation: conscious being(s) created the Universe.
Speculation: there exists a God.
Speculation: a speculative God created the universe.
Yes, but how to escape a dying multiverse? Why is nobody thinking about THIS problem?
Problem already resolved. This Universe may contain conscious beings (extraterrestrial intelligent conscious beings) that are ten-billon years advanced in their technology. Imagine extra-universal conscious beings wielding ten-trillion-year advanced technology!
Earthlings have a loooonnnnngggg way to go. Defeating terrorists before they annihilate the human species on this planet is first order of business followed by curing human death via youth-rejuvenating/non--aging biologic immortality.
Science is the study of what happens when there are no supernatural forces involved. If supernatural forces are involved, then it is Theology.
Speaking of theology...
God: I won't bother creating other Gods with equal abilities as mine so I have a wide verity of like-minded Gods to enjoy life with and benefit one another. Na, no logic in doing any of that. No logic in creating a Mrs. God to.... ahem... well, you know, give the woman's touch around here.
A nice diagram from here:
|
|
It's moving towards us. The stellar spectra are, on average, slightly blueshifted. In order to say "you have no clue", you have to pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
[Note: I reject in advance any lawyering about it being blueshifted instead of redshifted, as if "proper motion" is beyond the ken of science. The blueshift of Andromeda no more disproves the redshift-distance relation than the motion of the moon around the Earth disproves the idea that the moon is attracted to the Earth.]
Or, you could admit that astronomy has a history of spouting views that turned out to be science fiction.
History counts for nothing. I judge the quality of the evidence. You ignore it.
What killed Newton was the observational evidence (constant lightspeed, null Michelson-Morley, perihelion precession and stellar aberration).
I was away for a few hours. Ping list coming up ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
