/sci/ - Science & Math

How does it feel being poor?

-CS Master Race Student

>>6620795
Can you explain why 1+2+3+4...=-1/12?

Is there a solution for the position of a planet in function of time in the 2-body problem?

I know the movement describes an ellipse, but I was curious if there was a solution in function of time.

Question: How does it feel being poor.
Answer: Growing up, I never had to worry about money. My parent's were both very wealthy. However, after finishing my schooling, and paying for most of it with loans, I am in a very real situation. Like all Astrophysics, I am waiting for my first grant and a chance to do some serious research. Until then, I will be as poor as can be.

>>6620808
Why did you go into astrophysics when it has zero applicability for finding a job.

Question: Can you explain why 1+2+3+4..=-1/12?
Answer: Yes I can. I came across this equation during my research into quantum mechanics (general). In this equation, the equal sign does not signify what it is usually thought to symbolize. In the equation 1+2=3, the equal sign is saying that both sides of the equation are equal to each other, 100% of the time. In this equation, physicists have taken the equals sign to mean something else. I think it is something like "associative with" rather than "equals to".

Question: Is there a solution for the position of a planet in function of time in the 2-body problem?
Answer: Finally, an astrophysics problem. this is not that there is no exact solution, only the exact solutions for x(t) and y(t) use elliptic functions. The problem whether elliptic functions (which are defined by inverse of some integrals) are "good" functions is a bit philosophical one; one can on one hand state that sine is not a real function because one must integrate or sum a infinite series to calculate it, and on the other that even Lorentz attractor solution can be called three Lorentz chaotic functions with 4 parameters a, b, c and t and tabularized.

Question: Why did you go into astrophysics when it has zero applicability for finding a job.
Answer: Because I was following my dreams.

>>6620808
Can you give me an overview of what it's like applying for grants in astrophysics and in other sciences that you know of? How much money are different grants? Which institutions support which fields etc etc.

Are you a big Sagan fanboy?

How large of an effect could these speed of light in a gravitational potential corrections have?

Why is .9999999=1?

can cos theta = 3?

>>6620824
Nice.
Do you have any idea where I could find them?

>>6620836
Yes. Even more so recently, because I was able to meet with and talk to, THE Dr. Neil Tyson. And Dr. Tyson was very keen on Sagan.

>>6620848
.9999999 /= 1 in cases where intense measurements are required. It is akin to sig figs in high school physics.

>>6620849
>can cos theta = 3?
Only in polar coordinates or Gregorian mathematics (not the calendar).
I am not definite on this answer though, try to prove me wrong.

>>6620844
>How large of an effect could these speed of light in a gravitational potential corrections have?
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking about gravity's effect on the speed of light? The effect is as large as the distance the light has to travel. The more gravity affects it, the more the light is distorted.
There have been some pseudo scientists recently claiming that Einstein's speed of light is incorrect. Do not listen to them because Einstein's constant has been proven to be true time and time again

>>6620833
I'd rather not HAHA. No in all seriousness, it is an absolute pain in the rear. The amount of paperwork required borders on insanity. Grants range from a few thousand dollars, to a 20 million dollar grant a colleague of mine got from a billionaire in Russia who wanted to study accretion disks at the center of our milky way.
I hate discussing grants and the like when I do not have to so please do some research for yourself. But do not let it discourage you from becoming an astrophysicist.

>>6620879
Yeah, I was asking about these correction which were going around recently.

Are you Neil Degrasse Tyson?

Could you link your reddit IAMA, these plebs are asking silly questions, trolls essentially.

But regardless, how did astronomers deduce that the universe is dominated by dark matter? After all, Newton never knew about them, yet his equations still prdicted Neptune's existence. You'd think that if dark matter was so rampant in the universe, every prediction would have an abnormally, but seems like dark matter only fills up places far away from our light cone.

OP is a faggot
also faggot OP if you wanna get some attention you should go to /b/

>>6620898
Jeez

>>6620898
No one knows what dark matters is it is a placeholder for an unknown thing, that does not interact with anything, we only know of its existence by observation and surmise that something must be there holding galaxy clusters together

>>6620930
I asked how

Not what

>>6621030
the question you asked lies within the statement

>>6620795
why is the Earth's ionosphere always negatively charged in relation to the surface of the Earth? The solar wind is neutral. What mechanism causes this charge separation?

>>6621186
>The solar wind is neutral.

false.

>pions
>protons
>muons
>electrons
>anti-matter versions of the above

Where did you get the info that the ionosphere is negatively charged?

>>6620867

>>6620795
What's the fundamental problem with gravity and quantum mechanics? Out of curiosity is it something related to active diffeomorphism invariance in GR and the lack of it in QM?

I'm a mathfag so I can get hit with some math if you want.

>>6620795
I was wondering recently... how much QM is involved in an astronomy BS/PhD? I finished my chem degree recently and was surprised how much QM I ended up learning (mainly because instrumentation that chemists use requires QM to understand the results + other stuff like statistical mechanics for thermo).

Do you astronomers know as much about the world as theoretical physicists? I mean they know like everything. I mean EVERYTHING. They know how every machine works, they know principles and laws of chemistry, biology, they seem to be knowledgeable in psychology and they know history of our planet with quite specific details.
Or is this all just my emotional impression of them?

so you know FOR SURE %100 that EM waves do not need a medium to travel through

Imagine a sphere with a radius=4.

Imagine this sphere is divided into a radius=2 sphere and a
radius=4 halo.

Imagine that the radius=2 sphere implodes to radius=1 and releases energy that propels the expansion of the radius=4 halo.

The total energy of radius=2 converting to radius=1 drives the halo to radius=6 before the mass mass of the radius=1 sphere and the radius=6 halo cause it to collapse on itself.

The radius=6 halo compression is not uniform and now the radius=6 halo material approaches the radius=1 sphere and itself as though it were distributed by phi^pi.

The compression of the radius=6 enters a decaying orbit of the radius=1 sphere and creates a vortex orbiting a singularity.

Have you considered that there's something to this whole fluid dynamic explanation of superconductors and black holes?

>>6620795
Do you consider yourself to be a real doctor. If someone were having a heart attack, would you jump into the fray saying, "Stand back everyone, I am a doctor?"

An example in practice that comes to mind is the Δ=4:0Tc spectral scattering gap involved with the superconductivity of bismuth cuprates. To be specific, the optical conductivity of optimally doped Bi2Sr2Ca0:92Y0:08Cu2O8+. This is because optical conductivity exhibits a power-law behavior at intermediate frequency regime. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2998v2.pdf We can observe this property when observing cuprate conductivity. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.3292.pdf

Why is this relevant to discrete boundaries of particles in the observable universe?

BSCCO demonstrates a non-linear behavior of disassociation energy and continuum of value in a free particle. It also has quite a bit to say about vacuum perturbation and inhomogeneous charged black holes (more on that later). The optical conductivity in a simple holographic model of a 2 + 1 dimensional conductor was recently studied including the effects of a lattice. Earlier studies assumed translation invariance which implied momentum conservation. In that case the charged particles cannot dissipate their momentum so the real part of the optical conductivity always contains a delta function at zero frequency reflecting infinite DC conductivity. With the lattice included, the delta function is resolved. It was found that at low frequency the conductivity follows the simple Drude form, but at intermediate frequency, it follows a power scale law of |σω| = β/ω^2/3 + C . Charged black holes become unstable at low temperatures to developing scalar hair. The reason is essentially that the effective mass of the scalar gets a contribution e^2 At^2 *g*^tt < 0 from its coupling the Maxwell field which causes the Φ = 0 solution to become unstable. It was shown in that this is precisely the gravitational dual of a conductor/superconductor phase transition.

>>6622204
Firstly, the current correlator behaves singularly and this implies that the electromagnetic currents themselves are the order parameter fields responsible for the criticality. Secondly, the criticality exceeds to surprisingly high energies. Thirdly,we have seen, that the optical conductivity curves collapse on σ1(ω,T)=Tμh(ω/T) where μ=1 for ω/T<1.5, while μ~0.5 for ω/T>3. This disqualifies many theoretical proposals. Much of the intuition regarding quantum criticality is based on the rather well understood quantum phase transitions in systems composed of bosons. A canonical example is the insulator-superconductor transition in 2 space dimensions where the optical conductivity is found to precisely obey the energy-temperature scaling hypothesis, characterized by a single exponent μ=0 governing both the frequency and temperature dependences. Bosonic theory can be therefore of relevance in electron systems but it requires that the fermionic degrees of freedom are bound in collective bosonic degrees of freedom at low energy. In the cuprates it appears that the quantum criticality has to do with the restoration of the Fermi-liquid state in the overdoped regime characterized by a large Fermi-surface. This implies that fermionic fluctuations play a central role in the quantum-critical state and their role has not yet been clarified theoretically. http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0309/0309172.pdf

>>6622207
**Relevance in AdS/CFT**
As it is typical in condensed matter physics, the lattice structure induces a periodic inhomogeneous electric potential. In the holographic theory, such inhomogeneity in the boundary theory corresponds to that of the gauge field in the bulk theory. By superposing the solutions with different wave numbers, we can obtain an inhomogeneous charged black hole solution for an arbitrary configuration of the chemical potential. At the extremal case, p. p. curvature singularity generically appears at the event horizon for the long wavelength perturbations even though the Kretschmann scalar curvature invariant R_μναβ R^μναβ remains small. This implies that any freely-falling observer into the inhomogeneous black hole feels infinite tidal force at the event horizon. As the shear of any timelike geodesic congruence of the freely-falling observer diverges infinitely, the p. p. curvature singularity is a strong curvature singularity and the geometry cannot be smoothly extended into the inside of the black hole. The generic appearance of the p. p. curvature singularity would be associated with the inner causal structure of the non-extremal solutions. The perturbation with any wave length breaks down at the Cauchy horizon and the scalar curvature grows towards the Cauchy horizon. This curvature growth suggests that the inner causal structure of the inhomogeneous black hole solution is similar to the one of the Schwarzschild-AdS spacetime.

>>6622210
An inhomogeneous chemical potential induces an “electric” force in the charged matter of the boundary field theory. This “electric” force balances with the pressure gradient. It is one of the reasons why the Einstein-Maxwell system permits such inhomogeneous black hole solutions under the asymptotically AdS boundary condition, while the Einstein vacuum system does not permit them. According to the AdS/CFT duality, such a black hole is dual to the strongly coupled gauge theory under the periodic chemical potential in a flat 2+1-dimensional
spacetime. In condensed matter physics, such a periodic structure is a key ingredient to understand the energy gap or the band structure.

It's important to note the dual theory lives in a flat 2+1 dimensional spacetime even though the bulk spacetime is inhomogeneous. In the case of vacuum perturbations that is impossible to construct an inhomogeneous black hole solution under the boundary conditions, as the uniqueness theorem is established in the vacuum case. We can analytically and numerically construct inhomogeneous charged black hole solutions satisfying the boundary conditions, though.http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3677v2.pdf

The Point Being

The experimental data cited above demonstrates that this is not simple speculation; it's an observed phenomenon. It implies the periodic structure of the universe which itself disagrees with a simple continuum

>>6620795
What made you decide to do astrophysics vs some other branch? Im a sophomore physics major and i'm not sure what direction i want to take it in. Im leaning towards high energy but i used to think astrophysics was my end goal. Also, how is time management throughout your education? Im also a competitive collegiate gymnast and i want to know how long i have to enjoy it competitively.

>>6620883
Okay, can you provide me some resources where I could learn about such things? I do not know where to look.

>>6620795

Hello Dr. Doe, thank you for coming to this board. I have no background in physics, but I'm working on my b.a. in pure math.

Now, can you tell me your thoughts on the holographic universe and/or digital physics?

Thank you for your time!

Do you guys really say Bazinga all the time and talk disparagingly about geologists?

>>6620795
>Reddit AMA

I found the AMA. I won't reveal it out of respect, but I think this is legitimate. I hope you idiots didn't scare Dr. Doe off.

If you're still here Dr. Doe, I want to let you know, despite 4chan's bad reputation, some of us really love science.

>>6620795
>astrophysics
>Reddit

>>>http://boards.420chan.org/sagan
>>>http://boards.420chan.org/psy
are that way

>>6622306

Where are geologists on that list?

>>6620795
The Big Bang Theory. Started as small as a pentip, exploded into the vastness of the universe. Freeze time right as the universe is expanding, at the speed of light (beyond?) when it was only 10 feet by 10 feet. You're in this "room". Completely ignoring that it's so dense you couldn't see anything. You walk to the edge of this "room" what happens? What is at the edge of the universe?

>>6622320

https://plot.ly/~randal_olson/10/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/

>>6622308
>http://boards.420chan.org/sagan

kill yourself

>>6622272

Also, is there a known proof that a universe can exist without god? Maybe a philosophical proof?

>>6622331
>https://plot.ly/~randal_olson/10/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/

Mostly male and 121. Nice.

there is a function of radius for time yes. You can look it up in Landau's

>>6620809
That is false. Physicists and astrophysicists go into a lot of fields.

>>6622341

Ya you got to be pretty smart, especially if you study the physics of it. I think oil companies need geologists. It's hard to believe econ majors score so high.

>>6622361

Wall street loves them. If you can do math or physics, you can do pretty much anything.

>Be in an PhD AMA on /sci/
>Hello, my name is Dr. Doe
>Quest 1: How does it feel being poor?
>Answer 1: It sucks give me grant money plz
>Many assholes later, some random asshole on /sci/ raises real question
>Question cites numerous papers
>Strongly supports holographic universe and fluid dynamic explanation of gravity
>Experimental proof for periodic structure of universe
>Thread continues
>Do you guys really say Bazinga all the time and talk disparagingly about geologists?
>MFW /sci/ and PhD ignore experimental evidence pointing toward GUT

post dick with timestamp

>>6620795

>answer 5 questions and then leave

Seems like a normal Reddit AMA.

>>6620800
>be premed student

>>6621287
Some users of this board have been answering questions in my place. I have no problem with that but for clarification, I will sign my answers "Dr. Doe".
Your question is "What's the fundamental problem with gravity and quantum mechanics? Out of curiosity is it something related to active diffeomorphism invariance in GR and the lack of it in QM?"
Answer: Ah, gravity and QM, my two favorite subjects. Using big words like this, I am sure you know that at the atomic level, gravity is the weakest universal force. It is theorized that the DI discrepancy simply has to do with gravity having no Prelubian Power (or whatever Dr. Tyson called it) at the quantum level. No math needed to understand that

>>6622340
Question: "Also, is there a known proof that a universe can exist without god? Maybe a philosophical proof?"

Nothing came before the Big Bang and that can be proven using two scientific principles. The result of this theory implies that there was no divine creator. In other words: GOD IS NOT NECCESARY TO EXPLAIN PHENOMENA IN OUR UNIVERSE ANYMORE. As silly as it was for Vikings to believe that a Wolf God swallowed the sun during a lunar eclipse, it is just as ridiculous to think that some sort of sentient, supernatural deity created everything we see in our universe today.

Principle 1: PROTONS IN AN ATOM: At the subatomic level, scientists have learned that the usual laws of nature do not necessarily apply. As such, they created a set of laws commonly referred to as Quantum Mechanics. One of the postulates of Quantum Mechanics states that protons behave erratically. More specifically, protons can disappear at random and then reappear in another part of the atom in an instant.
On a much grander scale, this can be applied to the Big Bang. While humans are used to seeing every “Cause” have an “Effect”, the aforementioned “proton teleporting” proves this is not necessarily true. Therefore, it is fair to say that the singularity that led to the Big Bang could have merely appeared randomly-- like a proton.
[continued on new reply]

Dr. Doe

>>6622495
[continued response]

Principle 2: TIME DOES NOT EXIST INSIDE OF A BLACK HOLE: A black hole is formed when a massive star dies and then collapses onto itself. The extreme gravitational force the dead star exhibits leads to the formation of a black hole. Aptly named, it is called a black hole because not even light can escape the incredible strength of its gravitational pull. Furthermore, astrophysicists have been able to prove that due to the incredible strength of the gravitational pull, time slows down as an object gets closer to the center of the black hole until eventually, in the center of it, time does not move at all.
Because time does not exist inside of a black hole, it can be reasoned that there are other circumstances where time does not exist, like perhaps before the Big Bang. There was no time before the Big Bang because there was nothing that existed before the Big Bang. When the singularity appeared and the Big Bang occurred, only then did time begin to flow.

Conclusion: These two principles prove that there could not be a God because there simply WAS NO TIME FOR A GOD TO EXIST UNTIL THE SINGULARITY APPEARED IN SPACE.
Although this theory cannot be explicitly proven, it is backed up with science, mathematics, and logic. In that sense, this is a much better hypothesis to the origin of our universe rather than saying “a God did it”. There is no evidence that a supernatural creature created our universe.

I love that all of you are so interested in astrophysics. Sorry if it takes me a while to answer all of these questions. If any of you know the answer to a question, by all means, answer in my place.

>>6620898
I did not post that first answer. Probably why you were not satisfied by it HAHA.
Put simply, if there is no such thing as dark matter, then e=mc^2 is a completely false equation. However, we have proven that e=mc^2 is in fact true, so, as such, there must be something that we are missing because when we run the numbers, about 70% of matter in the universe is unaccounted for. That 70% is dark matter. That is how it was deduced.
Predictions would not have been abnormal because dark matter does not factor into Named equations beyond e=mc^2. There is no other equation that would have to account for dark matter.

Dr. Doe

>>6622306
Thank you. Any questions.?

Dr. Doe

>>6622496
Oh sweet, I was just writing about this.

Why the hell is a black hole a singularity? Fusion fuel burns from the inside out. That means at some point the total energy of the system gravity center will be displaced from the core to the magnetic torsion lines as the interior core cools down. That will produce turbulent curved space that radiates out to the from the magnetic equator of the celestial body, no?

I mean think about it. That answers the accretion disk, the jets, the information paradox. It also explains the radius of the photon shell which happens to match the optimal parameters for a Coherent Lagrangian Vortex.

Turbulent black holes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4859v2.pdf

Oh yeah, this is very much related to periodic structure of universe from early. Turbulent curved space wouldn't be possible without it.

Thanks for the AMA, good luck with your grant.

>>6622340
Question: Now, can you tell me your thoughts on the holographic universe and/or digital physics?
Answer: I have not seriously studied these topics so far. But what do I think? I think if we know more about the String Theory and Quantum Foam, then we can answer your question. But there is not a single person alive today who can tell you if we are in a holographic universe and back it up with enough evidence. Maybe someone else on this board has studied it more than I? I'd like to learn something as well.

Dr. Doe

>>6622493
Nobody cares about your shit, attentionwhore. Now fuck off.

>>6620795
Dr. Doe, What would happen if a lava sun collides with an ice sun?

>>6622506
Ah 4chan, good ol' encouraging 4chan.

>>6622505
Yes. I can. Because of cuprate super conductor behavior. This is not new. We've been tinkering with this idea since 2008. We've had experimental evidence since 2012.

Yes, I said EXPERIMENTAL PROOF. Holographic universe does not mean what most people believe it means. It's not a description of us living in fucking computer simulator (but I would imagine you know that).

UCSB CONFIRMED THE BEHAVIOR WITH SUPERCONDUCTING CUPRATES.

>>6622512
Look it up yourself. By the way, i suck giant nigger dicks.

Dr. Doe

>>6622505
Sophomore undergrad majoring in physics here.
Asked one of my professors this question, and I'd like to see if you answer it similarly.
Photons are considered to be essentially massless, and we all know their velocities. So how is it these photons have momentum? Mass times velocity = momentum, so how can 0 grams x 3 x 10^8 m/s = anything other than 0?

We know photons have momentum because we see them blowing off outer layers of some of the largest stars in the universe.
Thank you for the answers by the way, it's really cool that you come on to a shit board like 4chan and help us out.

>>6622512
It would make a lot more sense than the big bang. I guess you could say the big bang would be the equivalent of when a 4 dimensional black hole or equivalent formed, and then our universe came into being?

Why are the laws of the universe the way they are? Why does gravity pull objects toward earth at 9.8m/s/s? Do you believe that its the result of an infinite number of solutions existing with this being (one of at least) the only one that can harbour inhabitants cabable of asking this question? Or is it the part of the nature of reality? I realize this is a little more on the theoretical end of physics but I figured you are the best person I know of to ask.

>>6622528
Fundamental properties of geometry and force. Essentially this is what happens when you fold shit

>>6622507

Bump for this question

>>6620795
Were you ever in a frat

>>6622501
>proven that e=mc^2 is in fact true
>proven
How do you feel about people (both scientists and lay people) talking about physics and science in general as if we can "prove" the theories and formulas in the same way we would prove a math problem?

I'm not trying to be nitpicky about your wording; it just reminded me of that question.

>>6622532
>fold shit
Sounds messy.

Seconding >>6622569. I know it's probably not the kind of question you want to answer, but in addition to all that fancy sciency stuff, it's cool to hear more about what kind of people study what.

do you like observational or theoretical astrophysics more? and why?

>>6622173

Please answer.

How do we know the Universe is expanding and its not just stuff moving away from each other?

Astrophysicist...

When will they learn....

>>6622777
This looks like it was written by a five year old.

http://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/29m9uj/real_life_scientist_makes_the_mistake_of_doing_an/

>>6622828
it came from /fit/ so yeah

>>6623014
i don't know how to use reddit, I just like the title in the url
>>6620795
>>6620795
what about this question?
>>6621700

>>6622322
Check em.

Not OP, and just an 18 y/o physics/astro undergrad, so take my answer with a grain of salt if you wish.

The matter conceived from the tremendous energy release of the big bang did not expand into nothingness, or "fill" nothingness with something.

Rather, it expanded out into pre-existing space. And, as you probably already know, everywhere is the center, since it didn't have a beginning point, it just started expanding.

Imaging you have a cardboard box. Empty. But at the bottom is a balloon full of paint.

Pop the balloon and what happens? It splatters paint all over the inside. But the space before it popped already existed, no? The pop didn't create the space.

Now, is this space finite or infinite? That is the real question.

>>6622569
That hurt.

>>6622364

I mean, I would know, I'm a geologist. Some of the geophysics classes I took in undergrad were harder than any of my graduate courses.

>>6622496

Hmm, thank you. I will try to process this as I don't know physics. I guess I was meaning the entire multiverse/existence instead of just our universe. I'm thinking of the multiverse as some sort of possibility space that must adhere to logic in its essence. I don't think "nothing" can exist-even empty space and nothing is something. I think this would imply that the multiverse is infinite and why it exists at all...and perhaps why consciousness is needed at all (strange). I think this could be done without a god. I don't buy that nothing existed before the big bang due to the idea of the multiverse, however it might seem or not matter that nothing existed before as we are in that universe. Also the idea of god is debatable. Maybe god is a computer program, math, or an advanced civilization. Whatever it is, god must adhere to mathematics .

Hope i don't sound too much like a crackpot. just thinking.

>>6620795
What happens when an ice sun collides with a sun made of lava?

>>6623317

Ignore the consciousness part. thank you.

>>6620795
What's the origin of the cosmological redshift?

>>6622306

>mathematicians have lower IQ than physicists

Yeah nah that's a troll image.

>>6620795

Why are there so many people called John Doe?

>>6620795
No, you're that raving nutcase who has been on this board for some time. Promoting your crap. If anyone remembers the posts with the pages of made up mathematics and your theory of everything, they will know.

There is no University of Columbia, there is no Reddit AMA and you are not a physicist.

>>6623672

: ]

>>6623370
Someone is going to tell you the universe is expanding. The data disagrees with this.

Vacuum permeability variance between origin and contact changes the wavelength. Curved space caused by local concentration of energy in a region distorts wavelength. There is a lot more to consider, though. I recommend a read on the Rainbow Universe hypothesis if you're curious.

>>6622774
Because it doesn't fit with cosmological tests like BAO and it would also mean we were the centre of the universe with matter moving away faster the further it was from us.

>>6623370
The expansion of the universe.

>>6622501
This person has never studied astrophysics.

>>6623687
>using data as singular

Why, you illiterate mother fuckers...

>In b4 Grammar Nazi

>>6623687
>The data disagrees with this.
That's crap. Observational evidence like weak lensing, BAO, the CMB power spectrum, angular scale tests and surface brightness tests support the expanding universe strongly.

What you are suggesting is tired light which has no experimental support. It is flat out contracted by angular scale tests, the CMB spectrum and surface brightness tests.

You're welcome to you hypothesis but stop spreading lies.

Max depression physics tyme:

1. E=mc2. So you have the mass of anything like the coffee mug in front of me - like half a pound - you multiply that by (not the speed of light mind you - the correlation between mass and which seem fuzzy at best) but the speed of light squared and get energy somehow? Sounds like the scene where the faceist police throws the mug at the dudes head.
2. Time dilation. Are you talking about a fucking treadmill? If light went ten miles an hour and we scooted up to nine - what does light have to do with time? Yeah, we would experience a lot of visual disturbance, but things would only appear differently not actually act differently. And while I'm at it - if you had a platform moving on a platform moving on a platform etc. each going half the speed of light - how come the top platform doesn't exceed light speed relative to the bottom. We invented time - it does not exist independly the same as inches or liters. But it does sound like how I think of setting how long I'll go on the treadmill for.
3. Black holes - if I'm to understand this correctly we have photographs of a thing that precisely swallows up light? I don't want to go to heavy into the details but to say the least our evidence for them cannot look like a big swirly. It sounds like a request form for having a black guy flush your head in the toilet.

>>6623709
This is too stupid to be real.

>>6620795
Did the Big Bang come from a lightless square

>>6623716
Oh. It's real.

>>6620795

Big Crunch, Big Freeze, or Big Rip?

>>6623703

Brightness measurements don't lie, bitch.

>>6623703
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/116776/factors-in-predictions-for-tolmans-surface-brightness-test

Published in peer reviewed journal. Read up you uneducated fuck.

>>6623770
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271814500588 herpderp

>>6623729
I believe that our universe is going to end in a Big Crunch. I think it is very possible that we are simply in the middle of an endless cycle of expansion and recession.
All three hypotheses have potential evidence but Big Crunch is the most likely in my eyes. If our Universe were to end in a Big Rip, there would have to be an extra "X-Factor" that would be needed to considered in the General Entropy equation for our Observable Universe.
Big Freeze is a strong candidate but I think eventually, given everything we know expansion will slow down enough to begin the Big Crunch.
What do you believe will happen?

Dr. Doe

>>6623718
No.

>>6623770
>>6623773
You're quoting a single paper out of hundreds on one method out of a dozen.
Cherry picking. This is particularly bad as non-cosmological factors surface brightness tests vary with wavelength, you have picked one spectral region.

Reading up is not googling a single paper you uneducated fuck.

>>6623773
Oh look, it's Eric Lerner, who is notably not a cosmologist and a nutter who couldn't be more biased. One paper is not a field.

>>6622173
It is mostly an ''emotional impression''. Its understandable that you could think that given that physics is the basis for pretty much everything ( inb4 muh math), so understanding the base might lead to better understand the rest.
However, even if physicists ( or some of them, at least) know about many subjects, they are in no way specialists. Learning the theory and how its applied in physics leads to some understanding in MANY fields, but nothing compared to specialists.

Also you mentionned laws of chemistry and biology, but thats mostly the basic laws that barely requires knowledge of these fields and is most likely a physical application or something.

>TL:DR ; physics can help you understand many fields, but you'll never know much of all these other fields.

>>6620795
what mechanism causes the Earth's ionosphere to always have the same polarity of charge?

>>6623773
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370..455S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456L..79P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..728S

Tied light also doesn't explain time dilation in supernovae and in line observations of active galactic nuclei.

>>6623773
>>6623770
And after a tiny bit of digging the paper is a turd and ultimately misleading.

motls.blogspot co uk/2014/05/claims-universe-is-not-expanding.html

They have intentionally ignored relativistic corrections which are needed at these high redshifts. They are not testing standard cosmology and they have no model of their own to test.

how big is your cawk?

>>6623833

Very fucking small, nigger.

With love,
Dr. John Doe

do you think anyone given enough time could grasp the concepts you study? Do you think IQ is a limiting factor? How much of a difference is there between you and people that you view as being gods in the field? Are they intellectually a ton better or is it more focus?

I guess my main question is how relevant is intelligence or IQ to being useful in physics and math, are there things that some random can find?

I always am afraid I am not good enough. Do you ever feel like that?

>>6623795
Do you think that you exist in each iteration of the crunch/bang?

>>6623811

No, I didn't mean they are specialists in everything, I meant that they have enormously wide base of knowledge.

>>6623840
I love this question. I think that there are two major factors that decide whether or not you will be successful in the study of astrophysics. 1.) Your love of the Universe and 2.) Your dedication to learning. Intelligence and IQ merely show how quickly you will learn. Astrophysics is all about learning as much as you can about everything.
Severely low IQ is obviously a limiting factor but whether you have realized it yet or not, a high school or college GPA is directly related with how much you apply yourself. If your worry stems from doing poorly in physics and math up to this point, it is because you have not properly applied yourself yet.
The fact that you are on a forum like this, asking these questions, shows that you care.
I only grasp the concepts that others cannot because I studied them. I was a normal high school kid who had an insatiable love for the cosmos. The rest fell into place.
So to answer your question, intelligence is a limiting factor if you cannot grasp mathematical concepts after studying them for an extended period of time.
Not good enough for what? The Universe is an unimaginably large "thing" and our brains are designed to hunt for our next meal, not calculate how many Planck Seconds it took for inflation to begin during the Big Bang. Even Einstein was hopelessly outmatched at finding all the answers. What I can tell you, is that as long as you are always learning, you will be good enough for humanity and good enough for the Universe.

Dr. Doe

I am going to ask you all a question. As a society, what can we do to stop the plague of complacency and stupidity that has been sweeping the world? It seems to me like the majority of today's youth in the U.S. are focused on, and care about, things that have no meaning. As I scroll through my little cousin's twitter feed, I get upset at the countless posts that are USELESS. The girls post about coffee and tanning and getting drunk. The boys post similar things. It disturbs me that our society has fallen this quickly. We need to turn around the United States and it starts with our youth.

Dr. Doe

>>6623820
>ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456L..79P
Publication Date: 04/1991
>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456L..79P
Publication Date: 01/1996
>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..728S
Publication Date: 02/2010
>Because of the strong variation of SB of such galaxies with intrinsic size, and because the Tolman test is about SB, we must account for the variation. In an earlier version of the test, Lubin & Sandage calibrated the variation out. In contrast, the test is made here using fixed radius bins for both the local and remote samples.

Revisiting old data with a new parameter to confirm results. Good.

>Diagrams of the dimming of the langSBrang with redshift over the range of Petrosian eta radii shows a highly significant Tolman signal but degraded by luminosity evolution in the look-back time.

And now we find that the signal confirming our results is strong if we account for our the signal not being strong by compensating the lack of strength as the result of redshift we're testing. ... Hmrr.

Well, let's look at the paper Eric's paper. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.0275.pdf

>In this paper we reconsider this subject by adopting a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z (which is not the standard Einstein–de Sitter model), resulting in a relation between flux and luminosity that is virtually indistinguishable from the one used for ΛCDM models.

So rather than attribute the signal degradation to the redshift from the expansion we're trying to confirm, we analytically examine the flux.

>We stress that our analysis compared samples of galaxies that were matched for: mean absolute magnitude, rest-frame wavelength, minimum measurable physical radius,thus removing the needs for complex and uncertain corrections. There is no implicit or explicit bias for SB or galaxy radius.

So the 'nutter' called bullshit on your 2010 paper and PROVED IT WITH THEIR DATA.

Behold, thou hath been schooled.

>>6623939
Dr. Doe for president.

>>6623939
I don't know if it's possible to reverse it at this point. Too many people aren't competent in basic learning due to pure apathy. They just care about living in their little world, socializing, facebook, and shit like that rather than look at the larger picture that there's actually other people besides them that matter in the world. It's just an issue of mindset that, sadly, has accelerated in growth with technology. It is really sad how the internet, probably the most vast resource we have at our disposal for knowledge, is wasted on a lot of trivial nonsense for the typical user.

My inner /pol/tard wants me to actually go around and reduce the population by killing off the imbeciles that go around and prance in their happy-go-lucky lifestyle. Probably something to do with the Jews, of course, and their corporate greed that herd us like cattle and our existence is just to feed them. It's not really the politically correct way of going about it, but I don't think I'd be against it if it were to happen. Hitler did nothing wrong, of course.

But it's not even just complacency thats an issue. With the current system we're in with politics and policies that aren't regulated properly causing unnecessary waste in finances, it allows some lazy people that take advantage and make the rest of the economy sag. At this point it needs to be taken down and then started anew, like education and how we teach our children to be decent human beings, even when tempted by technology.

>>6623939

My god, you're as pretentious as that helpful maths-guy. And it shows because you're not smart enough to be pretentious subtly, so it'd still be cool.

> It seems to me like the majority of today's youth in the U.S. are focused on, and care about, things that have no meaning

Nothing has meaning. You should know, you're an astrophysicist.

> It disturbs me that our society has fallen this quickly

Are you implying people ever were interested in things beyond primal urges? Because they weren't.

>>6623947
Old=wrong? What crap is that.

>So rather than attribute the signal degradation to the redshift from the expansion we're trying to confirm, we analytically examine the flux.

What's not what that says. Why are you ignoring the important bit?

>In this paper we reconsider this subject by adopting a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z (which is not the standard Einstein–de Sitter model), resulting in a relation between flux and luminosity that is virtually indistinguishable from the one used for ΛCDM models.

>which is not the standard Einstein–de Sitter model

>We are not testing the expanding universe !!!

Which is complete and utter fucking nonsense. You cannot use a linear Hubble relation at redshift 5. This diagram shows nicely why not. The model Lener uses is a straight line. That is not standard cosmology. Hmmm? Is that good?

So instead of dressing the actual problem you have deluded yourself into thinking you know what's going on. Congratulations, you missed the argument. You didn't even read what I wrote.

That's fucking schooling, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>6623965
When I say "no meaning", I am referring to things such as someone watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians rather than doing something to better themselves or humanity. Yes, nothing has meaning. But in this sense, it has no meaning in the big picture. As humans, it is our inherent job to further evolve our own kind, whether it be by studying the stars or learning how to preform a triple bypass heart surgery. And you can counter by saying that "if they find meaning in watching shows like that, that's there prerogative, what position are you in to judge?". To that I say, I am not judging but merely making an observation. The anonymity of the internet grants me the leisure to talk like this. I have said some choice things over the internet recently. I fear if it was ever revealed who I truly was, my career in astrophysics would be all but over.
No I am not implying that but I am implying that past generations did not soak up the gains of their respective past generations as much as the current generation is today.

>>6623939
Well, motivating them around a common goal usually helps. If you manage to convince enough people you've found a Dyson sphere hurdling toward us and that we had a couple centuries to react, they'd probably give a few more fucks.

>>6623970
Old interpretation of the same data challenged by a better, simpler theory that fits a broader spectrum with near perfect accuracy.

Yes, in this case, older is required to defend itself.

>>6623978
Can you dunk like Shaq? What if you really, really wanted to and spent all your time practicing on the court? Could you do it if you just tried hard enough? The odds of the answer being yes, no pun intended, astronomically low.

Not everyone is capable of the degree of abstract reasoning necessary to contemplate these ideas. The act of contemplating things more complicated than what you've described is a blend of taxing and frustrating. So they do these simpler things instead for stimulation and enjoyment. Every time you call them out on it, they think you're telling them they could be dunking like Shaq.

>>6623978
frivolous chat, gossip, idle social noise... all serve a purpose. social interaction is important to young people, it aids in their development.

Not everything can be earth-shatteringly important, the mundane must have it's allotment or out time.

Again I will ask, could you help me understand why the Earth's outer layers of atmosphere always have the same polarity of electrical charge?

Is it possible this electrical charge polarity has changed in the past as our magnetic field polarity has changed?

>>6624003
Give it up. That isn't what's happing here and you know it. They haven't run the same test, it isn't comparable with the older papers, they've decided to run a new test and try to claim it's the same. It tests a model nobody uses, this paper is there to dupe the layman into Lerner's house of lies.
No. The paper is bunk, I've shown that, nothing needs to be said other than that. When he does a fair test, "older" standard cosmology will have something to say.

They don't have a new theory, they say it in the paper. There is no perfect accuracy anything.

>In this paper we are testing a static cosmology where space is assumed Euclidean and the redshift is due to some physical process other than expansion.

They don't have a theory. They have no way of obtaining the result they fitted.

A non-expanding inverse is inconsistent with real surface brightness tests and a dozen other results. Broader spectrum my ass. How does it explain angular scale distance or BAO? It doesn't.

>>6623970
Alright bitch, it's on.

Comparison of the distance modulus for Vega magnitudes for the adopted Euclidean non-expanding universe withlinear Hubble relation cosmology and the concordance cosmology. Upper panel: The distance modulus (m–M)=25+5Log(cz/Ho)+2.5Log(1+z), where H0=70 in km s−1 Mpc−1 as a function of the redshift z for an Euclidean Universe with d= cz/H0(black line) compared to the one obtained from the concordance cosmology with m= 0.26 and = 0.76 (red line).

Middle panel: Ratio of the two distances(concordance/Euclidean).

Lower panel: Distance modulus difference in magnitudes(concordance-
Euclidean). This graph shows clearly the similarity of the two, making galaxy selection in luminosity model-independent

>>6624022

Tolman SB test for the non-expanding Universe scenario in K, R, and B bands as derived from PDdC 3 data. Values now correctly refer to the same physical radius of 1 kpc (in the non-expanding scenario). Data have been K-
corrected (with the same values used in PDdC); thus SBs are expected to follow and do follow the (1+z)−1 trend (solid line). The dotted lines show the (1+z)−4dimming expected in the expanding Universe scenario.

>>6621287
There are at least 2 issues.
1) GR is not renormalizable, so the standard methods of doing QFT completely fail. Diff invariance is related to this.
2) Hawking radiation/loss of unitarity. When black holes evaporate, they do so in the same way regardless of what went in. This issue can also be investigated in the context of quantum entanglement entropy. At the very least, this indicates a failure of QFT on curved space, but no one knows where the approximation fails. The recent uproar about firewalls posits that the event horizon doesn't exist in the conventional sense - it is singular, and hence called a firewall.

>>6624030

Tolman SB test for a non-expanding Euclidean Universe as derived from Lubin and Sandage 4 data, restricted to the region of overlap in luminosity between local and distant samples. Surface brightness in VEGA mag/arcsec 2 is k-corrected and made brighter by a factor 2.5Log(1+z) to remove the expected dimming. Thus, in absence of expansion, galaxies of the same luminosity should have the same SB within the scatter of the SB - luminosity relation. They should also have comparable physical radius.The transformation from arcsec to pc was done assuming d=cz/H0 for all redshifts. Different symbols refers to the local sample at z=0.037 (Dots), galaxies in cluster Cl 1604 + 43 atz=0.924 (squares), cluster Cl 1604+43 atz=0.897 (Diamonds), and cluster Cl 1324+30z=0.756 (Triangles)

>>6622501
Confirmed for troll. This dr doe or impersonator has no idea what he's talking about.

>>6624022
He didn't use standard cosmology. Why use a wrong model from page 1? Where is the comparison between his static cosmology and the concordance model in terms of distance modulus? It's in the caption but not the figure. It's easy to show it on a log log scale and claim all is well but why do it? That's what a real journal would ask. If you want to claim you ruled out the expanding universe how can you only use one expanding universe?

>Comparison of the distance modulus for Vega magnitudes for the adopted Euclidean non-expanding universe

Not there. Let's not forget it is published in a bunk journal.

But the root of the problem is that the model he uses is tired light and it often isn't rules out by the Tolman test. That's why Lerner focuses on one cosmological test. The reason he didn't use the concordance model is that it would work equally well, we've seen it do so in hundreds of papers.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/781/2/96

It's not new for tired light to work on surface brightness tests. The problem is it is invalidated by angular scale tests among other things. Something Lerner ignores entirely.

Again, you've been duped.

>>6622512
I'm @ UCSB right now, and nobody said anything about the universe being provably holographic or anything of that nature.

AdS/CFT is indeed all the rage right now, and it does involve holography. This correspondence has been used to study QFTs that describe superconductors (eg the cuprates you speak of). If you mean some of these QFTs can be mapped to a higher dimensional gravity theory, sure. Maybe the holographic gravity theory predicted an interesting property that was difficult to calculate in the QFT.

However, none of this implies that our universe is holographic. Our universe is not asymptotically AdS, and our current understanding of the correspondence is insufficient for saying anything interesting about the global structure of our universe.

>>6624030
Assumes no evolution. You only get (1+z)−4 with no evolution, which we know is crap. He is not using concordance cosmology.

The question you have to ask is why is this so radically different to Pahre et al. not to mention the hundreds other papers? If you analyse the data a second time and get a violently different result your result is not more valid because it's new, it is suspect just as the other. in this case we have many papers to draw on, leaving Lerner with little credibility particularly as it isn't peer reviewed in a proper journal.

>>6624036
>The transformation from arcsec to pc was done assuming d=cz/H0 for all redshifts.
Oh look. Another blatant error. Angular scale observations are ignored and he is inserted a wrong model, now for the second time. You cannot base a test on a false assumption.

1996 Pahre, Djorgovski, and de Carvalho (PDdC hereafter) applied the Tolman test by studying the SB of elliptical galaxies in 3 clusters up to z=0.4. It was concluded that the data are in good agreement with the expectations for an expanding Universe, while the non-expanding model was ruled out at the better of 5-sigma significance level.

To cope with the strong SB-radius correlation of elliptical galaxies, PDdC compared the SB at a fixed physical radius of 1 kpc computed for the expanding Universe, adopting H0=75km s^−1Mpc^−1,ΩM=0.2, ΩΛ=0. Unfortunately, they used the same SBs computed for the expanding case to test also the nonexpanding one. This is invalid; all the transformations from apparent to physical sizes must be properly computed for the static model using the linear d-z relation in order to actually test the static model. When this is done, we see that the SBs used by PDdC refer to physical radii of 1.4 kp cat z=0.23 and 1.7 kpc at z= 0.4. For consistency with PDdC we use H0=75 km s−1 Mpc−1. Due to this effect at z=0.4 (pictured), an artificial SB dimming of ~0.5 magnitude is introduced (remember that luminosity decay I mentioned earlier?). This is fully responsible for the failure of the non-expanding model claimed by PDdC. Note that VEGA magnitudes are used in this work, so a (1+z) dimming is expected for the static case. This is shown in >>6624030 where the corrected data for the static model are compared with the predictions.

This is why you don't use the prediction of expansion to account for redshift dimming when testing expansion as being responsible for redshift dimming.

>>6623939
There is not a plague of complacency and stupidity. In fact, the opposite is true.

In the same way, we may feel like there is a plague of violence sweeping the nation (omg schoolshootings etc), but in reality it is our COVERAGE that is expanding while the phenomenon itself decreases.

More than ever, young people are engaged unlike ever before. They have access to knowledge and communication, and finding examples of its "misuse" is laughably easy.

Can you imagine someone being illiterate in the youngest generation? It wasn't until 1930 that illiteracy dropped below 5% in the US.

Just because you see the stupid everywhere doesn't mean its effects are omnipresent. Society hasn't fallen, it is rising. Don't let confirmation bias get the best of you, Dr Doe.

I have a question, though:

"Dark matter" has always seemed like a fudge to me; even the idea of dark energy seems more plausible (in a truthiness way). What phenomena does "Dark matter" help us explain, and what evidence is there for these effects?

As someone who hasn't made much of an in depth study of the topic, I would like to ask about The Big Bang.

From my understanding, all energy and matter were super-compressed into an insanely small point, what I'm wondering is how was all that matter and energy capable of staying the size they were for however long they were prior to expansion?

>>6624067
galactic rotation curves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>>6624022
I don't actually agree with his calculation either. They are not similar. I'd like to see his mathematics behind it.

>>6624071
Classical GR posits that time started with the big bang, so there is no before. If you're asking about the time between the big bang and "very dense", then that's just the result of time evolving the initial conditions. How did the initial conditions become that way? derp

Realistically, classical GR will fail at some point, in which case we don't know what comes "before".

>>6624058
Go have a chat with Gary Horowitz about the holographic duality and the corrugated black hole model they used to predict the surface behavior of bismuth cuprates.

>>6624067
>"Dark matter" has always seemed like a fudge to me; even the idea of dark energy seems more plausible (in a truthiness way). What phenomena does "Dark matter" help us explain, and what evidence is there for these effects?

It's a legitimate question. Originally it was a fudge factor but it wasn't that controversial at the time. Originally it was observed galaxies in galaxy clusters were moving to quickly to be in equilibrium with gravity. It was assumed the light mass ratios were simply wrong and there was matter that was darker than expected.

Much later it was observed the mass distribution observed from the way galaxies rotate did not follow the distribution of visible matter, in an extreme way. Velocities should have fallen off after rising, they don't.

Initially it was assumed to be primordial gas or low mass stars. Searches for these plus small black holes, white dwarves and Jupiter like objects drew a blank. So what is it? Worse still evidence for the CMB restricted the amount of normal matter to that which couldn't explain dark matter. So it cannot be baryonic, like the matter we know.

We know of non-baryonic matter, photons and neutrinos. But it can't be either of them because they move to fast.

Now we simulate that dark matter is needed to form large scale structure and explain cosmology.

What some people call the test of fire was weak lensing. Which can map out the distribution of matter from the way background galaxy shapes are distorted. We see clusters of galaxies where the mass distribution peak is offset both from the hot plasma and from the visible matter peaks. Quite a lot of people think that this means modified gravity looks less likely. Modified gravities have never been very successful and few can describe clusters and cosmology as well as galaxies.

>>6624071
If all matter were condensed into a single point, then with infinitesimal space, there is no time. You can't have time without space. So the question of what happens "before" is meaningless. Also in the early universe, there was rapid expansion called inflation, so it didnt 'stay the size it was' at all

>>6624063
>Unfortunately, they used the same SBs computed for the expanding case to test also the nonexpanding one.
This just illustrates the scope of the bullshit. But he's done the opposite. He's used the static radii in the expanding universe model, which is wrong.

Furthermore we know the static model case is wrong from tests of angular size distance so of course Pahre et al. didn't use what we know to be wrong.

Deception upon deception.

>This is why you don't use the prediction of expansion to account for redshift dimming when testing expansion as being responsible for redshift dimming.
Not what was done in the paper if you bothered to read it.

>>6624073
F=L/[4πd^2(1+z)], where the factor (1+z) takes into account energy losses due to the redshift. When using flux per unit frequency, that is AB magnitudes, this relation further simplifies to F=L/(4πd^2). Therefore the absolute magnitude
M can be derived from the apparent magnitude m (in the AB
system) using the relation M-m = 5 -5Log(cz/H0)

Under the assumption of a static Universe the true size R and the apparent size r of an object are linked by the standard relation r=R/d , where d is the distance and r is in radians. The average surface brightness μ (in magnitude) of a galaxy becomes μ=m+2.5Log(2πr^2), where m is the total apparent magnitude, r the radius. As the radius does not depend on z, from this definition it follows that the apparent surface brightness is expected to get dimmer as m, that is µ~(1+z)^-1

>>6624097
No, what I'm asking is how he calculated the curve for lamdaCDM. I do not agree with it and I think the claim that they are similar is false.

>Under the assumption of a static Universe the true size R and the apparent size r of an object are linked by the standard relation r=R/d
Which is known to be wrong.

>>6624091
>>6624063

Column 1, sample name;

Column 2, redshift;

Column 3, spectral band observed;

Column 4, the observed surface brightness in mag/arcsec 2, as reported by PDdC. This value is not K - corrected.

Column 5, the radius at which the SB quoted by PDdC refers in the non-expanding Universe.

Column 6, the slope of the relation between radius and surface brightness in flux units re∞Σ^α as quoted in PDdC.

Column 7, the correction in magnitudes to bring the SB in Column 4 back to 1 kpc.

Column 8, the corrected value for the surface brightness at 1 kpc in the non-expanding Universe;

Column 9, the k - correction as in PDdC;

Column 10, the final value for the surface brightness at 1 kpc including both Δ μ and k - correction. Errors include in quadrature a 0.1 mag to accommodate uncertainties on the k - correction and the slope of the re∞Σ relation; d=cz/H0is applied at all z.

>>6624104
>lamdaCDM

The choice of a linear relation is motivated by the fact that the flux-luminosity relation derived from this assumption is remarkably similar numerically to the one found in the concordance cosmology, thedistance modulus being virtually the same in both cosmologies for all relevant redshifts . This is shown in >>6624022 where the two relations are compared to each other and (pictured) to supernovae type Ia data. Up to redshift 7, the apparent magnitude predicted by the simple linear Hubble relation in a Static EuclideanUniverse (SEU) is within 0.3 magnitude of the concordance cosmology prediction with ΩM
=0.26 and ΩΛ= 0.74. The fit to the actual supernovae data is statistically indistinguishable between the two formulae.

>>6624109
Doesn't it bother you that he has chosen 3 to 2 data points? Not even a highschooler would be allowed to do that. Pahre includes dozens, where are they?

>>6624114
Would you please stop repeating things like a parrot?
What I'm saying is I don't agree. I don't know where he's gone wrong but I think his LambdaCDM numbers are wrong.:
>>6624073

>>6624081
Are you referring to arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6586.pdf ?

Are you referring to >>6622204's wall of text? It talks about 2+1 superconductors, and their dual gravity theory. It talks about black holes with funny boundary conditions.

Among the things he says is "the lattice structure induces a periodic inhomogeneous electric potential". Sure, lattice structures can do interesting things. I don't see how this is related to the global structure of our world. Maybe I'll read again after a nap.

>>6624123
Just getting the data up there.

Why would you use the LambdaCDM for a non-expansion universe? The BAO prediction in the CMB expects an expanding universe and non-turbulent space. Remove the expansion from the equation and add turbulent gravitational fluctuations. That does put us back to the IA supernova measurement (which he recognized and deferred to) but there's just no getting around that when considering a static Euclidean universe. Hence ΩM=0.26.

Two months ago before the withdrawal of the CMB ripple discovery, I'd have been all derisive and snippy right along side you. It has dawned on me that they may not be there and that conceptually speaking, a whole lot of things with dark energy and dark matter are unanswered when we try to rely on expansion. In a non-expanding universe with turbulent gravity, a lot of things suddenly make way more sense. Not just at a cosmological level, either.

>>6624123
>>6624114
Well after some awkward spreadsheeting I have the results. Lerner is wrong. The concordance model does not follow the linear relation as shown.

I'm not on my regular machine so I have only speadsheets to plot and no codes of my own to do the calculations.

LambdaCDM was taken from a handy Caltec code:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html
h_0=70, omegaM=0.3. omegaLambda=0.7 as per accepted.

Linear was as you described. d=cz/h_0, mu=5log(dist Mpc)+25.

The disagreement is stark and unforgiving, in agreement with the other graph I sources: (>>6624073). It is in complete disagreement with the graph in the article and falsifies a major assumption of the paper.

In summary Lerner's paper is absolute bunk. His numbers are nonsense, possibly intentionally as I have no idea why he would not use the concordance model. This plus his assumptions of angular size scale and lack of evolution are unforgivable.

This paper wasn't published in a real journal and it shows, it's bollocks. I hope this will convince you but I'm not holding my breath.

>>6623709

>>6624153
>Why would you use the LambdaCDM for a non-expansion universe?
Because it has been demonstrated. And you're missing the point, he used the static angular size scale for the expanding case.

Lerner's model can't even explain the CMB. His plasma cosmology is invalidated by late time effects such as the SZ effect, the ISW effect and gravitational lensing.

>The BAO prediction in the CMB expects an expanding universe and non-turbulent space. Remove the expansion from the equation and add turbulent gravitational fluctuations.
BAO is a late time observation. The fundamental feature of BAO which is that it shows non linear angular size scale. Completely at conflict with a static universe.

>Two months ago before the withdrawal of the CMB ripple discovery
It wasn't withdrawn. There is a conflicting paper, there always is in the beginning of any discovery. What happens next is anyone guess.

>It has dawned on me that they may not be there and that conceptually speaking, a whole lot of things with dark energy and dark matter are unanswered when we try to rely on expansion.
Oh don't spout crap like that. Lerner sold you one test on his "simple model", the big bang had one simple test, 100 fucking years ago. The fact there is debate on the frontier of science does not mean everything is wrong and this idiot is right. I don't care if you like it more, that's bias.

You're clearly interested an intelligent but lack the knowledge to tear into technical papers, I do not mean that as an insult. You should do some reading on real cosmology and astronomy so you can tell nonsense from discovery yourself.

>>6622496
Terrible logic in this second one m8

>Because time does not exist in black hole it could possibly not exist in other cases
>No time before big bang because nothing existed

>>6624196
If an event occurs at one point in time, it is possible at infinite points in time

>>6624208
Except it's not occurring in time. Time not existing in a black hole is not an event occurring in time. That doesn't make sense.

>>6624208
/tv/ here. What's your favorite movie?

>>6624225
Stop arguing with the guy with the PHD. He obviously meant space instead of time he has better things to do then play games with noob fags

>>6624139
Consider, if you will, periodic structured super fluid space. Now apply curvature to it. The lattice structure becomes relevant if it can successfully describe variance in QED because suggests the oscillating property of the wave reflect perturbation upon the surface of the fluid. if that's true about the surface of a superconductor, the behavior there should also reflect that of vacuum permeability.

This leads to a very interesting reemergence of a pilot wave and suggests that if valid, fluid dynamic behavior is scale irrelevant. Which is not only testable, it's already been tested and demonstrated that a droplet vibrating upon the surface of a fluid will replicate the path of an electron probability cloud. More than that, it hints at entanglement as an emergent property of turbulence on the fluid surface linking two individual droplets together.

This is an outright rabbit hole but it's 4chan and I've been drinking, so I'll muse for the hell of it. Such a description could then go on to imply that a particle in a vacuum is an excitation of a fundamental fields that has entrapped some quanta of space relative to the energy of the excitation. That would mean the Higgs is surface tension to overcome before a bubble forms from a field excitation and it would have discrete steps in values which would thus explain the fundamental massive particles. This would directly and immediately explain relativity and gravity.

So much explained. All of it casual. All of it possible to describe from first principles. No arbitrary constants. No information destruction paradox. No accelerating expansion of the universe. No virtual particles. No 'it just does that'. It also leaves room for a multi-verse (which would simultaneously exist in the same space). For all the possible directions beyond the standard model we can do, this is by far the most elegant and rational of solutions.

What thos? A thread for lemmings?
Going back to mage thread.

>>6624157
That's some impressive work.

If you're right this is blatant falsification and it should have come out much sooner. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though did you factor in the µ~(1+z)^-1?

>>6624181
>Oh don't spout crap like that. Lerner sold you one test on his "simple model", the big bang had one simple test, 100 fucking years ago. The fact there is debate on the frontier of science does not mean everything is wrong and this idiot is right. I don't care if you like it more, that's bias.

You'd be surprised at the sheer volume of papers and topics I read. You're correct that I'm not technically familiar with astrophysics to be able to spot an error like you did. You'd be incorrect to assume my bias emerges because I like Lemer.

I am watching the beginnings of a transition toward fluid dynamics in quantum. It carries a chain reaction with it. An expanding universe in a super fluid space with a period structure simply doesn't make any sense. Dual gauge? That makes a whole lot of sense. Turbulent gravity falls right in line and that's neutral to scale.

I suppose some part of me hates the idea that something so irrationally arbitrary as an accelerating expansion is here fucking with the universe at large and ignoring it completely at fundamental levels.

Whenever I bring it up I hear 'stay in your lane', but you know what? Fuck it. I'll read out of my lane if I want to and cross reference as the big picture emerges.I'll find out what is and isn't working by arguing with folks like you as necessary. And I'll appreciate the sport of it.

>>6624269
>For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though did you factor in the µ~(1+z)^-1?
This is calculating distance modulus m-M (also mu), not surface brightness. I haven't touched surface brightness or his static universe. This attacks the key assumption that a linear model can substitute the concordance model without problem. It simply isn't true.

>>6623978

> No I am not implying that but I am implying that past generations did not soak up the gains of their respective past generations as much as the current generation is today.

That's because there were less gains of the respective past generations. Unless you believe that if youth had ipads by the age of 8 in 1950, they wouldn't play with them all the time, like kids do now. Which is obviously wrong.

>>6624281
>You're correct that I'm not technically familiar with astrophysics to be able to spot an error like you did. You'd be incorrect to assume my bias emerges because I like Lemer.

That's my point. I'm not saying you know nothing about physics but to get stuck into papers you need technical knowledge. I'm not saying you're biased because you like Lerner, I'm saying you preferred the simpler option even when it couldn't explain anywhere near as much.

>I suppose some part of me hates the idea that something so irrationally arbitrary as an accelerating expansion is here fucking with the universe at large and ignoring it completely at fundamental levels.
It's not arbitrary. Firstly GR an expanding or contracting universe and the vacuum potential seems to indicate there should be a cosmological constant. It must be suppressed or we wouldn't exist but zero is quite unlikely with no reason to suspect it.

>>6624294
>GR predicts*

>>6624245
Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

>>6622431
>premed student
So an arts student

It's been so long since we had someone with real education on /sci/.

Do you think warp engines are possible?
Even if we find a way to control mass for example.

What are some of the more interesting parts of the GTR, that still have insufficient evidence to support it? I read sometime ago that a lot of scientists still argue against some postulates of GTR, so they must be an actual research theme to this day.

>>6624282
Flip the tables. If I am unwillingly to consider the LambdaCMD property as emergent from expansion then how will you ever propose the correct the redshift value to me? I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to know why he's wrong whilst fully appreciating the concept proposed. Since this is not Einstein De Sitter space you have to account for the dimming on his terms, no?

If you pass along your formula and graph results real quick, I'll be happy to take my aggressive nature and go into correspondence with them directly. I want to know whether or not they committed fraud or we simply missed something and I'd like it to be hard for them to bullshit me on a technicality.

>>6624157

To be clear, I want to know if you used:

d=(cz/h0)*(1+z)^1/z

>>6623939
Read 'Industrial Society and its Future' for the answer my friend.

>>6624800
My bad, I wrote that wrong.

d=(cz/h_0)*(1+z)^1/r

>>6624294
>It's not arbitrary. Firstly GR an expanding or contracting universe and the vacuum potential seems to indicate there should be a cosmological constant. It must be suppressed or we wouldn't exist but zero is quite unlikely with no reason to suspect it.

Okay, let's step through that logic with the information we have about the Higgs right now. The universe begins and approximately one second later it collapses in on itself.

The end.

Something is wrong with that or we wouldn't be around to discuss otherwise. Fluid dynamics modulating gravity in a network of coherent Lagrangian vortices would impose both expansion and contraction. A turbulent vortex in a sphere of fluid would behave a lot like a magnetic field.

If you imagine yourself riding along the surface then space is itself net 0 but appears to be expanding or contracting depending on where you happen to be in the cycle. That doesn't mean the expansion or collapse isn't bounded and the properties can be local to galaxies.

Not letting this die until I get the formulas driving those graphs to compare with Lemer.

>>6624821
>>6624772
>>6624821

No I didn't use that, I used the quoted correct formula which you yourself quoted. d=cz/H_0.

>d=(cz/h_0)*(1+z)^1/r
Why on earth would distance (determined from redshift, luminosity independent) depend on radius of the galaxy? It doesn't, a small galaxy with the same redshift is not further than a bigger one. It makes absolutely no sense and is rubbish. The paper quotes the correct formula time and time again but then uses this one drawn form nowhere.

I've already provided all formulae and the graph. Do I suggest you email them? No. People submit papers to bunk journals for a reason.

>>6624892
>Okay, let's step through that logic with the information we have about the Higgs right now.
No. Firstly that is one paper, secondly it is based on both BICEP2 and LHC.

>Fluid dynamics modulating gravity in a network of coherent Lagrangian vortices would impose both expansion and contraction.
Waffle which is meaningless unless you prove it.

>>6624196
the universe was a singularity before the big bang. the logical reasoning he particularly used may no be sound, but you can say there was no time before the big bang because there's no time in singularities

>>6625542
Under the usual definition, the big bang _is_ the singularity. I guess it's not too much of a stretch to also include the period immediately after, but before inflation.

That guy's problem is not just a minor issue of "unsound logic"; he's throwing random nouns around. Not all singularities are the same. The simplest example is the tip of a cone. Surprise! Time does not end there. Schwarzschild with negative mass results in a naked, timelike singularity. It has both a past and a future. The singularity at the big bang and inside black holes are "space like" - they extend in the spatial directions, but do not have a past/future. It is in this sense that there is no "before" the big bang.

Let's consider the cone analogy again. An ant walks in a straight line towards the tip of the cone. What happens when it reaches the tip? It needs new rules for what to do next. It is in this sense that GR cannot tell us what comes before the big bang. Maybe the tip of another cone is attached there, and the ant can visit the other cone. In the absence of additional rules, nobody knows.

> Consider, if you will, periodic structured super fluid space. Now apply curvature to it. The lattice structure becomes relevant if it can successfully describe variance in QED...

I don't understand.

> This leads to a very interesting reemergence of a pilot wave

Like in Bohmian mechanics? How is that related?

> and suggests that if valid, fluid dynamic behavior is scale irrelevant.

sure

> Which is not only testable, it's already been tested and demonstrated that a droplet vibrating upon the surface of a fluid will replicate the path of an electron probability cloud.

So they're controlled by similar differential equations. Fine.

> More than that, it hints at entanglement as an emergent property of turbulence on the fluid surface linking two individual droplets together.

wat

> ... Such a description could then go on to imply that a particle in a vacuum is an excitation of a fundamental fields that has entrapped some quanta of space relative to the energy of the excitation. That would mean the Higgs is surface tension to overcome before a bubble forms from a field excitation and it would have discrete steps in values which would thus explain the fundamental massive particles.

And the massless particles? How does this predict discrete values?

> So much explained. All of it casual. All of it possible to describe from first principles. No arbitrary constants.

don't agree

> No information destruction paradox. No accelerating expansion of the universe. No virtual particles. No 'it just does that'. It also leaves room for a multi-verse (which would simultaneously exist in the same space).

Not related

> For all the possible directions beyond the standard model we can do, this is by far the most elegant and rational of solutions.

AdS/CFT in general? Yes, that's the bandwagon. What you're saying? Not so much.