Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 7:41 AM
203 online now:
caffeine, jar, jaywill (3 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,052 Year: 11,875/29,783 Month: 897/1,642 Week: 5/306 Day: 5/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Astronomers See Evidence of Something Unexpected in the Universe
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 16 of 86 (829030)
02-28-2018 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
02-28-2018 4:44 PM


I think Nwr's objection is more epistemological. He might agree that on one level what you describe is objective while seeing that objectivity dissolve into mere human consensus and assumptions on deeper levels.

Yes, exactly.

This isn't necessarily a problem for us. But it is not what people have assumed about objectivity. And it should cause us to question how far we can project local knowledge to the cosmos as a whole.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 02-28-2018 4:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1690
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 17 of 86 (829048)
03-01-2018 2:16 PM


Strongly Lensed Type Ia Supernovae
Can strongly lensed type Ia supernovae resolve one of cosmology's biggest controversies?

quote:
In 1929 Edwin Hubble surprised many people including Albert Einstein when he showed that the universe is expanding. Another bombshell came in 1998 when two teams of astronomers proved that cosmic expansion is actually speeding up due to a mysterious property of space called dark energy. This discovery provided the first evidence of what is now the reigning model of the universe: "Lambda-CDM," which says that the cosmos is approximately 70 percent dark energy, 25 percent dark matter and 5 percent "normal" matter (everything we've ever observed).

quote:
Until 2016, Lambda-CDM agreed beautifully with decades of cosmological data. Then a research team used the Hubble Space Telescope to make an extremely precise measurement of the local cosmic expansion rate. The result was another surprise: the researchers found that the universe was expanding a little faster than Lambda-CDM and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), relic radiation from the Big Bang, predicted. So it seems something's amiss could this discrepancy be a systematic error, or possibly new physics?

quote:
The farther away an object is in space, the longer its light takes to reach Earth. So the farther out we look, the further back in time we see. For decades, Type Ia supernovae have been exceptional distance markers because they are extraordinarily bright and similar in brightness no matter where they sit in the cosmos. By looking at these objects, scientists discovered that dark energy is propelling cosmic expansion.

But last year an international team of researchers found an even more reliable distance marker the first-ever strongly lensed Type Ia supernova. These events occur when the gravitational field of a massive object like a galaxy bends and refocuses passing light from a Type Ia event behind it. This "gravitational lensing" causes the supernova's light to appear brighter and sometimes in multiple locations, if the light rays travel different paths around the massive object.

Because different routes around the massive object are longer than others, light from different images of the same Type Ia event will arrive at different times. By tracking time-delay between the strongly lensed images, astrophysicists believe they can get a very precise measurement of the cosmic expansion rate.


The solution to the disparity in the results of the rate of cosmic expansion found using CMB and Type 1a Supernovae, may be comparison of several strongly gravitational lensed images of the same supernovae. Only two of these supernovae have been discovered so far and they are much rarer than usual type 1a supernovae. Another new tool to help us understand the Universe.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 18 of 86 (829078)
03-02-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
02-28-2018 6:37 PM


nwr writes:

To use the speed of light as a yardstick, you need a fixed clock. But we don't have one.

Due to the fact that E=mc^2 we would see major changes in stellar activity, color, spectra, and isotope production if the speed of light were different elsewhere in the cosmos. The balance between gravity pushing inwards and the energy of fusion pushing outwards is the basis for a star's major characteristics, and if that energy changed then we would see big differences. The speed of light is also a part of many other fundamental properties of matter that would also look different elsewhere in the cosmos if the speed of light were different in those regions. The very fact that type Ia supernovae increase and decrease in brightness at the same rate is yet another piece of evidence for the constancy of the speed of light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 02-28-2018 6:37 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 03-03-2018 2:25 PM Taq has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 19 of 86 (829115)
03-03-2018 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
03-02-2018 4:19 PM


Due to the fact that E=mc^2 we would see major changes in stellar activity, color, spectra, and isotope production if the speed of light were different elsewhere in the cosmos.

You have completely missed the point.

I am not arguing or suggesting that the speed of light is different elsewhere in the cosmos.

Rather, I am questioning the meaningfulness of even talking about whether the speed of light is different in other parts of the cosmos.

Everything that we say about the speed of light depends on earth-based standards. I am questioning whether those earth-based standards are extensible throughout the entire cosmos.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 03-02-2018 4:19 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by caffeine, posted 03-03-2018 4:23 PM nwr has responded
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 03-05-2018 12:47 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 20 of 86 (829119)
03-03-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nwr
03-03-2018 2:25 PM


Rather, I am questioning the meaningfulness of even talking about whether the speed of light is different in other parts of the cosmos.

Everything that we say about the speed of light depends on earth-based standards. I am questioning whether those earth-based standards are extensible throughout the entire cosmos.

And everything we say about the world depends on the things we see not being actually a strange effect caused by the interaction of the cornea with the cascade of ejaculate spewing from frantically masturbating invisible imps all around us; but we don't worry about that because it's some silly nonsense I just made up.

I can't help but notice that you're making exactly the same argument as creation in the Falsifying a young universe thread. The argument is not improved just because you write better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 03-03-2018 2:25 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Son Goku, posted 03-03-2018 5:29 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 03-04-2018 1:25 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1106
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 21 of 86 (829135)
03-03-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by caffeine
03-03-2018 4:23 PM


And everything we say about the world depends on the things we see not being actually a strange effect caused by the interaction of the cornea with the cascade of ejaculate spewing from frantically masturbating invisible imps all around us; but we don't worry about that because it's some silly nonsense I just made up.

Or so you claim. The Imps would most likely have somebody "on the inside" to spread misinformation like this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by caffeine, posted 03-03-2018 4:23 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 22 of 86 (829213)
03-04-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by caffeine
03-03-2018 4:23 PM


I can't help but notice that you're making exactly the same argument as creation in the Falsifying a young universe thread.

No, I am not making that argument at all.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by caffeine, posted 03-03-2018 4:23 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-04-2018 2:57 PM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17582
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 23 of 86 (829234)
03-04-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
03-04-2018 1:25 PM


nwr writes:

I can't help but notice that you're making exactly the same argument as creation in the Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) thread.

No, I am not making that argument at all.

I have to admit that I see the same similarity that Caffeine sees. What you said in Message 19 that seemed to me so similar was:

nwr in Message 19 writes:

Everything that we say about the speed of light depends on earth-based standards. I am questioning whether those earth-based standards are extensible throughout the entire cosmos.

Here's an example of the point Creation was making in Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A). This is from Message 676:

creation in Message 676 of the Falsifying a Young Universe thread writes:

If we see something far far far out of our time and space area here, we still see it in our time. We could call it a fishbowl. All you seek to do is equate the way things move and behave in time here, to how it does far away from here. How? You merely use the time here that we see things from far away as the measure for how much time is involved. That could only work if time also existed the same out there as it does here. That you do not know.

Creation's expression is more primitive and he uses different terminology, so summarizing, Creation believes we can only know the laws of nature for the local region, what he calls the "fishbowl" that he concedes extends only as far as our deepest space probes, the Voyagers. He even echoed your comment on the speed of light. This is from Message 703:

creation in Message 703 of the Falsifying a Young Universe thread writes:

C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe.

To me he *does* seem to be saying the same thing as you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 03-04-2018 1:25 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2018 12:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 03-05-2018 9:10 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 24 of 86 (829286)
03-05-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
03-04-2018 2:57 PM


Creation believes we can only know the laws of nature for the local region, what he calls the "fishbowl" that he concedes extends only as far as our deepest space probes, the Voyagers. He even echoed your comment on the speed of light. This is from

I think creation's argument is less extreme than nwr's position. By and large, creation restricted his supposition to the idea that time progressed differently in different parts of space. nwr seems to be going much further to say that the entire concept of the speed of light is meaningless in distant regions of space. Both approaches would seem to be ruled out by evidence unless you want to take the additional further step of saying that nothing we perceive reflects reality. Of course, that same perception problem would apply right here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-04-2018 2:57 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 86 (829288)
03-05-2018 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nwr
03-03-2018 2:25 PM


nwr writes:

Rather, I am questioning the meaningfulness of even talking about whether the speed of light is different in other parts of the cosmos.

It is rather important to our whole understanding of how the universe works, so there's that.

Everything that we say about the speed of light depends on earth-based standards. I am questioning whether those earth-based standards are extensible throughout the entire cosmos.

And I am telling you that they can be extended to the entire cosmos, and can be used to ask and answer very important questions about the fundamental aspects of how physics works, both here and elsewhere in the cosmos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 03-03-2018 2:25 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 26 of 86 (829309)
03-05-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
03-04-2018 2:57 PM


Creation's expression is more primitive and he uses different terminology, so summarizing, Creation believes we can only know the laws of nature for the local region, what he calls the "fishbowl" that he concedes extends only as far as our deepest space probes, the Voyagers.

I'll admit that I haven't been following that thread. However, that sounds like a typical creationist argument, that laws might be different elsewhere. I see scientific laws as human constructs, so "might be different elsewhere" isn't anything I would argue.

Google for "hairy billiard ball". There are functions that cannot be extended to the whole space from a local region, depending on the topology of the whole space. That's closer to what I am arguing.

In any case, I'm not trying to falsify anything. I'm only expressing skepticism about how much we claim to know.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-04-2018 2:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-06-2018 8:05 AM nwr has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1106
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 27 of 86 (829320)
03-06-2018 4:56 AM


Unless I am missing the point General Relativity actually assumes that standard clocks and rulers don't exist and then makes predictions for what we should see here based on that.
Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 03-06-2018 11:20 AM Son Goku has responded
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 03-06-2018 12:50 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17582
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 28 of 86 (829339)
03-06-2018 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nwr
03-05-2018 9:10 PM


nwr writes:

I see scientific laws as human constructs, so "might be different elsewhere" isn't anything I would argue.

But Creation wasn't just arguing that "scientific laws might be different elsewhere." He was arguing that they might be different and that we can't know what they are. This seems not just very similar but identical to your position that we can't know whether scientific laws are different in other parts of the cosmos.

NoNukes makes the point that Creation was focused on time, but Creation wasn't capable of generalizing and made his points with examples. Time was his initial example, but he moved on to say we couldn't know relativity behaved the same in deep space as it does here (Message 682), and he said we couldn't know the speed of light out there is the same as here (Message 703). He used examples rather than generalizations, but he obviously believed we can't know whether scientific laws out there are the same as here.

You and Creation also have the same issue of identifying a boundary between the "here" where we understand how scientific laws operate and the "out there" where we don't. Creation gave the "here" a name, the fishbowl, and he was willing to grant that it extended at least as far out as our deepest probes, the Voyagers. Wouldn't you have to concede the same thing, that since the Voyager probes are still operating that the boundary between the "here" and the "out there" must be at least that far away?

While the terminology and descriptions differ, to me your and Creation's positions are one and the same. Were you and Creation to find yourselves in a discussion about this with the rest of us you would find yourselves arguing on the same side.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 03-05-2018 9:10 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 03-06-2018 12:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2018 12:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 29 of 86 (829346)
03-06-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Son Goku
03-06-2018 4:56 AM


Son Goku writes:

Unless I am missing the point General Relativity actually assumes that standard clocks and rulers don't exist and then makes predictions for what we should see here based on that.

GR does posit that the speed of light is the same for all observers in all reference frames.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Son Goku, posted 03-06-2018 4:56 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2018 12:44 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Son Goku, posted 03-06-2018 4:14 PM Taq has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 30 of 86 (829366)
03-06-2018 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
03-06-2018 8:05 AM


This seems not just very similar but identical to your position that we can't know whether scientific laws are different in other parts of the cosmos.

Yes, that does indeed seem similar to what you are characterizing as my position.

The only problem here, is that it is not at all my position.

You and Creation also have the same issue of identifying a boundary between the "here" where we understand how scientific laws operate and the "out there" where we don't.

Again, that is not my position.

While the terminology and descriptions differ, to me your and Creation's positions are one and the same.

No, they are very different.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-06-2018 8:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018