Subject: Big, big, BIG (science) news
Date: Tue Mar 18 10:21:53 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:For all you theoretical physicists and astronomers out there....
And I like this comment in the "comments" section below the article:
"A common logical fallacy among those who turn their back on science is "I do not know...therefore I know"."
Reminds me of the thing Buzz posted in the "Stream of Consciousness thread, page 5. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson: "It’s true whether or not you believe in it!"
Amen.
Link: gravity waves have now been detected (subject to further proof)
Date: Tue Mar 18 10:39:42 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Who paid you to post this?
Seriously ... I have to confess that the concept that the universe expanded rapidly less than one trillionth of a second after the big bang is difficult to grasp. It takes me ten minutes to get from my office to my car. One trillionth of a second is about a billion times faster than it takes me to ignore my boss's latest request for more paperwork.
I'm just not good at astrophysics. Tip of the hat to those who think in such grand fashion.
Date: Tue Mar 18 12:18:03 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:BuzzClik:
"Who paid you to post this?"
As you well know, Buzz, when one reaches certified s(c)hill status like we have, one gets all kinds of offers. I got started in this biz by Irwin Mainway, to take the place of Aykroyd after he quit doing the "Bass o Matic" ads. Anyway, I digress... I'm not allowed to reveal who paid for starting this thread, but let's just say that Neil Tyson (and his older brother, Mike, of course) are very good friends of mine.
And like you, one day I hope to graduate from merely being a s(c)hill, and hit the big time: "lobbyist".
Date: Tue Mar 18 18:52:03 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:Wait a minute. You're schilling for the god-forsaken chicken industry now? How can I get some of that action? Big money there...
Date: Tue Mar 18 19:00:37 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Oh no- wrong Tysons - and somehow I think you know that. As usual, you're just stirring the pot.
I represent the Tyson boxing/astronomy consortium. The "other" Tyson juggernaut wishes....
Date: Tue Mar 18 19:20:27 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:Okay, now that we have that squared away, and it being obvious that you and your ilk are gobbling up all that cash (and ringside tickets) I will have to move on...
I wonder they arrive at such conclusions. ("Scientists believe that the universe exploded from a tiny speck and hurled itself out in all directions in the fraction of a second that followed, beginning just 10 to the minus 35 seconds (roughly one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the universe's birth.")
And, of course, where did the insanely-packed speck come from? Was it always there? Was it the result on a prior contraction of super-gravity? Preceded by a prior Big Bang? An endless series of events taking untold trillions of years? I mean, if the existing matter and energy comprising our vast number of worlds, suns, galaxies, universes and all that lies between have always existed, even in the form of a speck of unimaginable mass and potential energy, really, where did it all originate?
By the way, I have been plowing through "The Hidden Reality..." by Brian Greene for the past several weeks.
Date: Tue Mar 18 23:31:47 2014
User: MikeC
Message:Why God put it there of course ! How else could something so small ever turn into something like the universe in which we live ?
Date: Wed Mar 19 00:11:04 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:I guarantee that He was not faced with airline baggage fees for overweight luggage.
Date: Wed Mar 19 01:28:37 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Snowguy, it was just a simple, classic case of diverging assets. It was clear that the gravy train of Mike's bouts was going to end sooner or later, so it was thought that astronomy would be a good counter-"investment". Logical. And in hindsight, a very good move. Management is now looking ahead to the time past when all facts are known (like happened once before in the 1800's), to more purely marketable products.
And yes, we have, in the past, been involved in discussions with those "other" Tysons about combining assets in sort of a synergistic way. After all, what's more natural (GMO or not), than pairing "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" with cosmology? That's just a beautiful match. Maybe not yet supersymmetrical, but there's time for that to be figured out. And speaking of the unified field theory....we haven't decided yet whether to make our fields GMO-free or not. Depends on how the math works out.
There's also this one crazy idea to breed the chickens on the moon or Mars (so it won't matter (as much) whether they're GMO or not), and then use these gravity waves to ship them down here. Suffice it to say that there are still details to be worked out on that one....
You may be wondering how much I get paid for my services. I can't specify, of course, but believe me, it's in the shillions.
Date: Wed Mar 19 02:06:39 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:As to the more philosophical aspects.....
Earlier, the idea of multiple "big bangs" seemed to resonate, and be very plausible. In more recent years, that theory has lost a great deal of favor, especially with more info (such as it is) about dark energy and dark matter (among other factors). On the other hand, the plausibility of multiverses has gained quite a bit of acceptance, as that seems to be where the math leads, to the extent we can work with it correctly. I'm not keen on that idea (philosophically), but who am I to say? There are people smarter than me who seem to think it's unlikely there are *not* multiple universes.
A lot of how they arrive at those conclusions (about singularity, expansion, etc.) is based almost purely on the math. As I'm sure you know, even quantum mechanics loses it's meaning at the degree of matter compression that must have existed at/in the singularity. The math of that (quantum mechanics) doesn't 'permit' "particles" to exist in space(s) smaller than their characteristic wavelength. So we're in new territory (pun intended) when thinking of the math of that kind of point of matter. Even general relativity is not applicable.
I'm not familiar with the book you mention, but I'm sure I'd find it's subject matter interesting. At our core, what is more curious to us as humans than "who are we?" and "where did we come from?". Thus, we should all be fascinated by cosmology.
Date: Wed Mar 19 02:17:09 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:As a corollary, I've never understood why it's surprising (if that's the right word), to some, that there are the observed tiny variations in the cosmic microwave radiation. That's seems to me to be what one would expect from quantum fluctuations. But just like the conclusions about expansion and so forth in general, so much depends on the initial assumptions one assigns.
Date: Wed Mar 19 09:05:35 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:"The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Reality:_Parallel_Universes_and_the_Deep_Laws_of_the_Cosmos
Link: Available on Amazon (My copy is a Kindle offering)
Date: Wed Mar 19 10:55:36 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:I don't buy books, and virtually never read one, but maybe I'll hit up a library. Thanks.
Date: Wed Mar 19 12:16:42 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:Will this come up on "The Big Bang"?
Date: Wed Mar 19 12:40:40 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Since I don't watch that show because of the insipid laugh track, I have no idea.
However............I did just learn yesterday that the new "Cosmos" is on Fox. WTH? No wonder I haven't seen it, since I don't even see what's on those (the major networks) channels. I was expecting it on PBS. (And yes, I now know it's also on National Geographic, but I don't normally check that channel.) I was stunned to see that. Do they have a laugh track for "Cosmos" now? WTH does Fox know about science? Sorta like putting the 'fox' in charge of the hen house, if history is any guide. [W: "It's bad science." LOL.]
Date: Wed Mar 19 12:55:01 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:You were supposed to say "lol"
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:00:55 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:I did. At the end of my bracketed lament.
That said, does that show *really* get into any science? (I really don't know; I'm asking out of ignorance.)
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:04:34 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Science-lite, TN. With a taste of hard science here and there.
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:17:29 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:No it's meant to show non-geniuses how geniuses are big idiots, too.
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:19:56 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:I like Johnny Galecki (sp?)better as a non-genius. Why did he have to go nasal? Isn't that a stereotype?
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:24:57 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:They do mention science all the time on the show. And they've had Bob Newhart as a former TV science guy, (more than once) and they had Bill Nye, and Ira Flatow. And one of the guys went into space!
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:27:56 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:FOX has good cartoon shows.
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:29:15 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:Is this enough posts for string theory?
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:30:27 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well, I know FOXnews does.
(You can delete this post if you need to, Snowguy. Just couldn't resist.)
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:31:14 2014
User: TNmountainmanMUDstains
Message:Dr.X:
"Is this enough posts for string theory?"
Ok, that's pretty good right there...
Date: Wed Mar 19 13:36:58 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:I also like Lori Metcalf, the actress who plays Sheldon's mother. Saw her in a play (with dede in NY). It was a small room. Her costar was Nathan Lane. Wow, *I* was in the same room with Lori, Nathan, *and* dede. Pretty cosmic, I'd say.
Date: Wed Mar 19 18:31:25 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene also showed up on "Big Bang." He was giving a book talk, explaining how it deals with all the concepts, but leaving out the math.
This is NOT an easy book! IT starts with the early years of study of Physics and goes into today's concepts. Ouch. When I said "plowing through it." that's what I meant!
Link: Brian Greene on Big Bang
Date: Wed Mar 19 18:33:52 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:Did it again. Will leave off the https://
Link: Same
Date: Wed Mar 19 20:07:20 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:People who know me, especially from the other board, know I absolutely would rather read something than watch talking heads in a video. But this one could be worth an hour of time.
Link: Brian Greene and Amir D Aczel on the Hidden Reality
Date: Fri Jun 6 10:54:42 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Back to my initial post starting this thread......
....now there is a counter-theory. (See link below.)
This is not surprising to me. Not that I don't believe the inflation theory/theories; it's just that it seems mildly intuitive that the polarization could arise via other mechanisms. (That being said, I readily admit I don't understand B-modes.) I sorta thought along the lines of this comment in that original article which I linked up top:
"Because of how potentially important these results are, they must be viewed with skepticism, said David Spergel, professor of astrophysics at Princeton University. The measurement is a very difficult one to make and could easily be contaminated."
Link: alternative explanation to the polarization
Date: Thu Feb 11 12:12:38 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Wake up the kids; call in the missus.
This is *extremely* important in the history of science.
Appears to be absolute evidence that gravity waves are for real...........WOW.........
Link: This just might nail them down
Date: Thu Feb 11 14:25:39 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:Considering the importance of this discovery, it should have merited its own thread, imho.
Date: Thu Feb 11 15:00:37 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:I considered that, and it *does* merit such - but in keeping with my long-standing policy of trying to "keep things organized", and at least as much because, relatedly, this topic was already extant in this thread, I decided on this approach.
Date: Thu Feb 11 17:09:23 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:It is like referring to Galileo as the front band for Einstein.
Date: Thu Feb 11 21:00:05 2016
User: olblue
Message:I still want to know what would happen if you were to travel faster than light and you stuck a flashlight out the window and turned it on, what would the light do?
Date: Thu Feb 11 21:22:46 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:I'm not sure if that's a question for "The_Revelator" or not..........it does involve shedding light, which is what revelators often do.
Date: Sun Feb 14 04:55:16 2016
User: HdV
Message:Thanks for the thread and its links, TNmountainman.
I like the still images from the computer simulation released this month. (So, do a lot of newspaper editors: I saw them on the front pages of many of the papers last week.)
In case anyone missed them, here's a link to one.
Link: Still image from computer simulation of black holes colliding
Date: Sun Feb 14 07:29:10 2016
User: hotnurse
Message:Just curious; where did God live before the Big Bang?
Date: Wed Jun 29 04:26:30 2016
User: Klepp
Message:LIGO's exactitude is staggering to anyone not regularly involved in experimental physics: .001 a proton's diameter...(fields really, below matter-size).
Date: Wed Jun 29 10:35:14 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:I know. Truly inconceivable - in the literal sense of the word.
Date: Thu Jun 30 09:32:42 2016
User: csi
Message:Hotnurse
God lived anywhere he wanted - rental rates were quite low back then...........
Actually it was only .......... hmmmmmmm I don't remember
Data Source: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe Book 10098, page 6207.33
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:17:38 2016
User: hotnurse
Message:csi, yes He could live anywhere. To me, it is inconceivable how the universe even happened. Without going religion here, because it's banned, even *if* a god had created things in 7 of *his* time-days, well, he did rest on day 7, so he created all of this in 6 days then where was he before then? Creating something that went wrong and caused a big bang? Wowza...
Date: Thu Jun 30 10:44:24 2016
User: The_Inquisitor
Message:Why would a God need to rest?
Date: Thu Jun 30 11:45:38 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:Possibly to set a good example for the rest of his creatures!!?
Date: Thu Jun 30 16:30:05 2016
User: hotnurse
Message:The_Inquiz...in all of my years of questioning things I have never pondered that thought!
I've read a book or two of Stephen Hawking, a couple by Carl Sagan and one great one by Francis Collins called In The Language Of God. I'm still perplexed.
Date: Fri Nov 25 16:15:16 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, this is just out yesterday.....
It remains to be seen how influential or revolutionary this could become, but there's a distinct possibility this could lead to a whole new class of compounds. And/or cheaper manufacturing for some coatings, possibly new or cheaper drugs, and really, who knows? In school, some of us learned of the theoretical possibility of silicon-based life, but this is the closest demonstration (that *I* know of) of that potential.
I think this is still quite a ways from great utility, but I'm far from sure about that. Could be a Nobel Prize on down the road.....
Link: biological manufacture of C-Si bonds
Date: Fri Nov 25 16:31:10 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:Interesting! At the very least, it should reduce the production costs of existing silicon products!
Post follow-up