/sci/ - Science & Math

space shit is so fake and gay

I just want to come to the conclusion that this shit always existed and always will. somehow.

>>16087164
>t. i can't tell the difference between a picture of a star and sausage

Imagine thinking you can just put up a telescope and "make observations about the universe"
What's so special about OUR little corner of the Universe?
In any other field this would be called SAMPLING BIAS.

>>16087164
>we were in the center of the observable universe. Now that has been realized to be incorrect as well.
t. retard with GED

cosmological constant fucked in the arse, physicists on their death bed. have to change the dogma now, boys.

>>16087197
You're the retard. If the universe expands evenly in all directions, then anyone who observes the universe is in the center of their observable universe.

>Then we realized that was incorrect, but we were in the center of the observable universe. Now that has been realized to be incorrect as well.
Now? I'm fairly certain that you've never touched Cosmo books. Homogeneity and isotropy are the first principles in every text book.

>>16087204
thats what im saying you illiterate nutjob. did you read the OP?

>>16087164
>New measurement disagrees with established theories
>Physicists accept this and revise their theories
>Chud will claim that this is a bad thing
>>16087201 for example

>>16087211
they've been acting superior to people that didn't accept the dogma, so yes, it's right to feel vindicated. It was completely unrigorous nonsense, and another embarrassment for physics, that shows the difference in standards between physics and maths, in terms of which adheres more to objective truth.

>>16087222
>i blame others for my misconceptions, the post

>>16087230
next time don't assume things to be true, when it's not rigorously proven. if you want to make assumptions, include a footnote every single time you talk about those assumptions, or conclusions derived from those assumptions, that the assumptions may be incorrect.

>>16087222
So if you're so wise, where does the discrepancy come from? What specific aspect of the observations, and or models?

Toвa мяcтo ceгa e мoятa тoaлeтнa.

>>16087244
I don't know. I'm not a fan of making assumptions without thorough logical backing.

>>16087275
So you're you never knew better, you just guessed.

>>16087164
we sure it ain't the space curvature fucking with the light such that it appears to be a different rate?

>>16087222
>they've been acting superior
Your inferiority complex is showing

>>16087320
in his case i think it's more of a simplex

>>16087312
No, it's the difference between rushing and taking assumptions into dogma, and not doing so. And not constantly declaring that such things that you've assumed, are in fact assumptions, and no more than that.
It would be like if people started acting as if the Riemann hypothesis was solved, and started making conclusions based on that, whilst not recognising at each instance of those conclusions or invocation of the assumption, that it is in fact based on an assumption.
Then, a person saying that you should not do such a thing, would be correct. As the rhetoric around the issue, is biased, and not aligned with strict logic. Anything that makes physicists, rethink what has previously been dominant in their culture as a sort of accepted interpretation, is a good thing. That's the case here.
Saying, I never knew better, but just guessed, it just does not make sense as a reaction. It would be like if, in the riemann hypothesis example, you saying to a person that said they should not treat their conclusions so dogmatically, that they never knew better, and just guessed, that the assumption to do with the riemann hypothesis was not true. But of course, that person had made no assumption as to whether the assumption was true or false, and was just criticising the fact that an assumption, whether true or false, was accepted so readily, into the dominant rhetoric of maths, in that case. But in our case, it's physics.

>>16087232
>next time don't assume things to be true, when it's not rigorously proven.
Says the guy criticising the established theories despite not having any evidence to back his criticism.
>if you want to make assumptions, include a footnote every single time you talk about those assumptions
At some point it's a point of education. We know those assumptions. If you have to explain it every time, you won't get a straight sentence out.
>The star has a mass of .. well, when we say mass, we assume inertial mass and gravitational mass to be equal, anyway, the mass is estimated to be.. our estimations are based on the orbital period of binary stars, that means we assume Kepler's laws of gravity, but then again you need to factor in relativistic corrections, so we assume the speed of light being constant in every inertial system,
No. Go to undergrad lectures, learn the assumptions if you want to know them all and stop blaming others for your lack of education.

>>16087328
>Says the guy criticising the established theories despite not having any evidence to back his criticism.
as you can see with the riemann example, it's like saying you have an established theory as to the answer of the hypothesis, without having a proof, and then parading it around, elevating it to a higher level than alternatives, which is entirely unjustified. Established scientific theories, without footnotes on each of the assumptions made, only serve to lure people into a false sense of security that the theories in fact, represent reality.
As for your reluctance to declare assumptions when assumptions are taken, it's a matter of rigour. The reluctance to declare assumptions to be so, when they are used, or when conclusions of those assumptions are used, is deeply, unrigorous, and it separates physics, more and more from thorough, and strict logic, bringing it further and further into the realm of speculation, and does not give necessary weight to the alternatives. Because without a proper proof as to whether the assumption is true or false, the honest thing to do, would be to show all of the logical steps, accurately. Hence, why mathematics is much more honest, and rigorous, than physics, or 'established theories'. It's set to a higher standard, and is much more trustworthy.

>>16087327
>taking assumptions into dogma
And who decides what is treating something as dogma?
>And not constantly declaring that such things that you've assumed
Do you really need to be constantly reminded about the unchanging foundations of a model? Literally go read a book. When people give hypotheses vague names like "dark matter", it's a big hint that there are assumptions and limitations to what is known. You can't really do cosmology without making assumptions before testing them.
And you're accusing the field of being dogmatic, while this discrepancy had never been hidden. It's been around for about 8 years and a great amount of effort has gone into it. A field following dogma would not do that.

>>16087164
anon, you made the critical mistake that /sci/ was to discuss new developments in science.

>>16087345
I have a hypothesis about this anon. He certainly seems interested in physics, yet heavily frustrated. I think he once even enrolled in university, but dropped out for reasons outside of his control. Was it financial? Did he have health problems? Mental health? Was he simply not good enough? We don't know. But I think he had a personal connection. Rather than accept that he couldn't succeed in the field, he tries to delegitimise the entire field itself. It's the tale of the fox and the grapes. If he can't be part of it, then it must be bad. He goes completely off the rails and throws around big words like dogma and he gets joy out of "tensions". When journalists write things like "crisis", then he thinks that physicists are panicking. The scholars who rejected him are finally getting their comeuppance! How delightful. And he who used to say "you're all wrong!" was finally proven right. In his head at least.

>>16087164
Heatdeath doomers btfo

>>16087164
>depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates
Are we even sure it's actually expanding at all? This entire notion is based off of galaxies redshifting, but there are also blue shifting galaxies (not the norm, of course). Could it be the Milky Way is just unlucky and the majority of galaxies are simply moving away by coincidence?

I ask this because I've always been suspicious of how the alleged life cycle of the universe lines up with what we know about galaxy behavior, in that they crash into each other, go elliptical, and then become spiral again. It seems like the universe is too young for this to happen regularly, and expansion would imply this pattern of behavior is unique to only the early up to the present universe and would be absent as the universe gets older - which really is a big assumption requiring more evidence.

>>16087345
who decides what is treating something as dogma? it's apparent from the way the rhetoric surrounds an assumption. If not much thought is given to the possibility of the assumption being false, I would say it is dogmatic then.
As for the second point. Yes, it is neccessary to include, in a research paper, or book, or such thing, what assumptions were made. It's for logical honesty. And if those arguments were transplanted into a more strict logical form, you'd have to use modal logic, or some alternative, that captures more accurately, the true nature of the arguments. To be more accurate in presentation, to be more honest, and to be more strict, assumptions should be declared, and not just left to the reader to determine whether an assumption is in fact an assumption or not. For the integrity of physics, it should be done. Just as it is practiced more in mathematics, which is much more strict, and honest, than physics. And it commands a certain level of respect by doing that. Mathematics is certainly a respected discipline, due much in part to its logical integrity, and strictness, and willingness to declare assumptions when they are utilised. A lot of the time, anyway.

>>16087354
>anon, you made the critical mistake that /sci/ was to discuss new developments in science.
Yeah I am pretty disappointed actually. I don't make threads often and I thought this was a neat discovery. No one is discussing it they're just arguing about nonsense.

>>16087364
>This entire notion is based off of galaxies redshifting, but there are also blue shifting galaxies (not the norm, of course). Could it be the Milky Way is just unlucky and the majority of galaxies are simply moving away by coincidence?
Only very nearby galaxies can be blue shifted. There are only a couple thousand known, as opposed to all other galaxies. There tens of millions of redshifted galaxies with good measurements.
No it's not chance, as the more distant they are from us the faster they move away.

>>16087371
It's not really changing anything. The JWST measurements are just checking one specific potential systematic error, caused by crowding (the stars blend together). It doesn't check the supernovae at all, which do most of the work in the distance ladder measurements. The Hubble and JWST values are not independent.

I wonder if some places in the universe that we can't see, are actually contracting rather than expanding. Could that be a possibility now? Or do you think, it's always expansion, at every part of the universe, just varying levels of it? Or maybe an inbetween, like neither contracting or expanding, being a possibility in some places?

>>16087368
>If not much thought is given to the possibility of the assumption being false, I would say it is dogmatic then.
This is not very objective. Are geologists dogmatic for not considering that the Earth may not be round?
>Yes, it is neccessary to include, in a research paper, or book, or such thing, what assumptions were made. It's for logical honesty.
But we're not talking about the assumptions in the paper, you're saying people need to list all assumptions of the models being used, and the models which underpin those models. We assume Newtons laws, special relativity, GR... It would become utterly useless. And it would be redundant because it's already written in other review articles and textbooks.
>And if those arguments were transplanted into a more strict logical form
This isn't mathematics. Nothing is ever truly proven in physics. There are different levels of evidence, that's up to the reader to educate themselves. You cannot expect to be able to read research articles if you're ignorant of the basics of a field.

>>16087384
This sort of thing could explain Great Attractor and Voids.

>>16087406
>This sort of thing could explain Great Attractor
The Great Attractor was actually explained several years ago. There's another large mass of galaxies even beyond it that attracts the Great Attractor.

>oh hey guys, i know everything about the entire universe
>no, this isn't a massive grandiose delusion
>no, i am not clearly mentally ill and extraordinarily narcissistic
>no, this isn't cringey intellectually overreach on an enormous scale
>i really do know everything about the entire universe
>i bet you wish you were as smart and wise as i am

>>16087446
Why did you represent yourself with that image?

>>16087446
Who are you quoting?

>>16087164
>Discuss and post theories.

My discussion post/theory is that I really love space, space is absolutely the birthright of mankind, I think space is *super fucking cool*, but until we can actually get out into space and collect samples and count space frogs: I'm taking all space findings with a massive amount of salt.

As far as I'm concerned most space stuff is like trying to study the ocean when you can't swim and don't have a proper ship. You're just a little dork pulling things out of tidal pools.

>>16087186
that's a neutron sausage

>>16087448
himself

>>16087448
he's quoting scientists when there's a quell in new revelations.

so what do they do with the cosmological constant if the expansion rate is variable?

Also, hubble's constant isn't constant? That would be big.

>>16087222
Its not dogma if they're willing to change it with new evidence.

>>16087540
Dogma is still dogma regardless of what it is. It's not a matter of factuality, but a matter of how it is taught and how alternative opinions are treated.

Why do scientists assume constants exist?

>>16087560
Because Science is predicated on the conceit that Experiment A in Sweden circa 1890 will produce the same results as Experiment A on Alpha Centauri in the year 3000. If Experiment A produces different results depending on where and when in the Universe you are, then Science cannot function.

>>16087562
it's weird seeing people fighting constants. it's like they build a bunch of fake illusions and at some point they inevitably hit reality's rails. so reality becomes their enemy. if they could dissolve some particular elements, their worldview would make sense. people punching the ocean for standing in their way.

>>16087164
Most likely because astro physicists just assume that any apparent redshift must be caused by relativistic acceleration and not simply interaction of photonic radiation with the vast interglactic medium. The universe is not expanding, infact discretely it is collapsing into black holes that slowly evaporates into the vast nothingness of space where it condenses into the simplest element there is, hydrogen and the whole thing repeats endlessly and infinitely in all thinkable dimensions, even time.

>>16087312
knowing something is wrong is better than not knowing something is wrong. Asians like you are trash.

So the shape of the Universe is pretty much chaotic? Also does that mean there are places where Dark Energy is very low?

>>16087949
Dark Metal - Dark Energy - Dark Magic - Dark Zenith

Well the Universe just needs different time to render.

>>16087164
tranny astrophysicists keep making up random shit about space, just concede and tell everybody you don't know. not like it's not an open secret. be honorable and less pretentious. fucking scums.

So the Universe looks like an amoeba?

Self-inflating Big Booty Universe denied.
Goatse Universe confirmed.
Pepper your anguses

>>16087164
It's so fucking obvious...

>>16087917
black holes only release energy, they don't release hydrogen

>>16089496
>black holes only release energy
That has yet to be observed, it's just a hypothesis as of now.

>>16089487
Really great idea anon. I like this a lot and it makes a lot of sense. Would it even need to be a hyper massive black hole to do this? Could large galaxies outside the visible universe be pulling on the visible universe causing the same effect?

>>16089510
>Could large galaxies outside the visible universe be pulling on the visible universe causing the same effect?
Ah yeah that could work too

>>16089510
Why Galaxies? More like Great Great Attractors

>>16089592
Great Attractors are galaxies.

It is a fake universe, retards.
That is why science produces such bizarre findings.

>>16089592
>Great Attractors are galaxies
citations needed?
cause according to my knowledge, the tranny astrophysicists think that the great attractors are outside the observable universe so how the f do you know they're galaxies when it is impossible to interact with them

>>16089609
1. It's a just an idea
2. Outside the rim of our visible universe just means they won't interact with us, they can still pull on things more towards the edges of our visible universe.

>>16089511
>>16089847
Do you mean just regular sized galaxies or larger galaxies than we've currently observed? Shouldn't we be able to calculate this attraction based on the interactions from the galaxies we can see? Or are those galaxies outside our visible universe are that much larger that they've got a significant effect whereas the visible galaxies are too small to have that effect?

>>16089866
No idea

>>16087446
Don't hang up yet, I'm not done
I'm an expert, I'm the one
The one who was right all along
Better to be laughed at than wrong
I'm an expert in my field
UFOlogy, yes, it's all real
Ancient aliens, it's all true
I'm an expert just like you
And like you, I'm a genius before my time
Disbelieving, that's the real crime
Pretty soon they'll discover me
In the Super-Sargasso Sea!

I try to call you every day
What can I say
When the truth comes out? (Of my very own mouth)
I've been working on a unified theory
If I make it through tonight everybody's gonna hear me out (Now, now, now)
'Cause I'm the right one
(On my touch-tone telephone) On my touch-tone, touch-tone telephone
(I'm the only one on your A.M. radio!) I'm the only one
On your A.M., A.M. radio

>>16087211
Chud is such a stupid word. Just call them idiots.

>>16087222
Our current cosmology is a relatively new scientific development. As in, this thing you say is dogma was a change from some other thing you probably would've called dogma 30 years ago, and is being frequently challenged and updated by research.

Also, dogma is just the religious term for axioms. Do you not hold any scientific axioms? Why do you use it as a bad word, other than religious connotations and some kind of implicit "religion bad"? Atheists were the ones who initially opposed the expansion of the universe, just FYI. Big Bang cosmology went against the "dogma." Lambda CDM went against the "dogma."

Those are just some things to think about.

>>16087164
If our understanding of anything physics related has the word "dark" in it, then it is bullshit. This just confirms that dark energy = bs, which anybody with a brain already knew.

>>16087567
Whether or not constants actually exist (they obviously do, at least temporarily, given the fact we don't melt into goo and our technology regularly functions) is a separate issue from how long they exist (effectively forever, or relatively temporarily? The latter could explain odd observations, and these constants didn't always exist so they could hypothetically break down or change) and whether or not they exist everywhere (again, odd observations could be explained if constants varied depending on location; even if those locations are absurd distances apart).

But if constants are variable and subject to change, the fact is Science as we know it breaks down. Our system of knowledge assumes that once you know a fundamental fact about the universe, it won't change and can be applied for practical purposes. To say otherwise would be advocating Wonderland-tier insanity, even if that's how the Universe actually does work.

>>16091120
there are nothing scientific about cosmology when testing cannot be never done properly. all you are doing are pointing flawed instruments at random pieces in space collecting noises and make shit up about that noises.
cosmology is a useless discipline that isn't even scientific and should be buried.

>>16091477
That's a very dogmatic view. "You cannot know nuffing".

>>16091452
>But if constants are variable and subject to change, the fact is Science as we know it breaks down.
Hardly. People have searched for decades for evidence of time and spatial variations of the fundamental constants. They have found nothing. If there was variation there is nothing that stops physics describing that variation.

>>16091495
I'm tired of cosmologists making up bullshit outrageous claims. I don't care if it's dogmatic either they stfu when they find something real and significant and stop making up simulations or shitty unverifable theories about some random shit on the sky 10 gazillions light years away from earth.
>>16091500
humans have only been doing experiments for a very short amount of time relatively to the age of the universe. probably more 90% of that are doing very flawed experiments due to not having enough theoretical knowledge. the universe is billions of years old, fundamental consants might change very slowly that it's impossible to detect on human lives scale.
if fundamental constants change spatially, then humanity probably have to do interstellar travel to be able to detect anything.

>>16087201
...I......add....one dimensi-ack

And with that...Science™ was saved.

extra mass = more time dilation = less passage of time in relation to less dense regions = less time for expansion in relation to less dense regions
?

>>16091549
>unverifable theories
What matters in empirical science is that they are falsifiable through observational tests. And they are.
>the universe is billions of years old, fundamental consants might change very slowly that it's impossible to detect on human lives scale.
We can just look at far away objects and see the universe as it was billions of years ago. There are also things like natural reactors, which limit the variation of constants on geological times scales.

>>16091588
>falsifiable through observational tests
being falsifiable is not sufficient to be scientific, unicorn exists is falsifable, but not scientific.
theories about some random celesitial objects 10 trillions light years away might be falsifiable (even that is in doubt), yes, but ask yourself is it scientific?
the resolution of the information we know about those shitty objects are so low, is it worth being called "scientific"?
we don't even know if the information we get are just caused by some random flawed shitty theories or instrusmental defect.

>>16091588
>We can just look at far away objects and see the universe as it was billions of years ago. There are also things like natural reactors, which limit the variation of constants on geological times scales.
I don't know enough shit about this to comment but based on historical precedents, I don't trust your theories and experiments enough to completely rule out the changing fundamental constant hypothesis.

>>16091600
>we don't even know if the information we get are just caused by some random flawed shitty theories or instrusmental defect.
The observations are not caused by theories, they are interpreted by them.
And you can test for instrumental artifacts, and reject that.
>but not scientific.
Define science.
>>16091609
It doesn't rule out variation. It sets limits. There is no evidence for variation.

>>16087164
I think there's another fundamental force that's much weaker than gravity. To the point its effects are only observed on cosmological scales. It could be that some areas are expanding while other areas are not. Perhaps some areas are even contracting. But these areas may be much larger than the observable universe. So this force is causing the appearant expansion of the whole universe from our perspective.

>>16091441
And what are your feelings on the cosmological constant?

The universe is clearly in a steady quasi-static state.

>>16091664
Nope. Can't explain the fact there are many more quasars at great distances than locally, meaning galaxies change with time. Also incompatible with the CMB.

>>16087164
>we were in the center of the observable universe. Now that has been realized to be incorrect
lmao what the hell is this pajeet trying to say?

>>16087164
Oh my science I'm cumming and shitting myself rn fr

>>16091656
The only theory I'm aware of that predicts that sort of thing without needing adjustable parameters and magic numbers is Quantized Inertia. I don't know if it's legit, but it smells much less fishy. From the physicist's blog post where he talks about the cosmological constant https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2012/06/cosmic-acceleration-from-mihsc.html:
>In MiHsC, the same process as in the bath works with objects moving into deep space. As they move away from other gravitating matter their acceleration drops. Therefore, the Unruh waves they see lengthen, and a greater proportion are disallowed, so that the inertia of the object eventually decreases very fast, making it easier to accelerate even with a distant gravitating mass, and this stabilises the acceleration at a minimum of 2c^2/Theta. Happily, this is the acceleration that has been seen in the deep cosmos. It has been attributed to the vague concept of dark energy, and modelled by adding the cosmological constant term (an adjustable parameter) to Einstein's field equations, but MiHsC predicts it far more easily, and without any adjustable parameters.

>>16091948
*remove the colon from the url

Wake up honey, new state-funded schizophrenia just dropped.

frick yeah science