Science

[HoughMade]

A key assumption about cosmological redshift might be wrong, which calls into question whether "dark energy" is even a thing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/s...ught-we-knew-about-dark-energy-might-be-wrong

Ah yes, the cosmic keleven.

"While our theories are always advancing, it's foolhardy to believe that the information we have today is sufficient for achieving final answers to the big questions."

Indeed.

 

[spencer rifle]

A key assumption about cosmological redshift might be wrong, which calls into question whether "dark energy" is even a thing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/s...ught-we-knew-about-dark-energy-might-be-wrong

This is fascinating. Like the Drake equation and tree branches, the farther we go out in time and distance, the thinner the support, the more assumptions are required, and the more dramatic the consequences of getting it wrong.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Ah yes, the cosmic keleven.

"While our theories are always advancing, it's foolhardy to believe that the information we have today is sufficient for achieving final answers to the big questions."

Indeed.

We use Kelevens in our physics modeling all the time.

"Hey Bill, this model doesn't match the tests we did."

"Don't worry Ted, I'll put factor on this term, add a constant there annnnd....VIOLA!!! Totally matches!"

"Well done Bill, I'll put you in for a promotion for such excellent work!"

 

[BugI02]

When properly taken into account, the luminosity evolution of these supernovae essentially cancels out the need to postulate dark energy. In other words, maybe our universe isn't expanding at an accelerated rate after all

Still something going on, though. If the only push behind expansion was the initial 'bang' the rate should be slowing over time

 

[Libertarian01]

A key assumption about cosmological redshift might be wrong, which calls into question whether "dark energy" is even a thing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/s...ught-we-knew-about-dark-energy-might-be-wrong

This is what I love most about science, it is a tool, not an answer. It self corrects all the time. It takes all the data available, at the time, and comes to the best conclusion it can. It holds onto this "viewpoint" until new information is discovered, then it either course corrects or determines the new information is not valid.

This of course isn't taking into account the amount of vigorous testing and review of any new idea. Studies must be copied and proven by others. This way it avoids simple mistakes.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 82955

 

[Alpo]

Is Bernie throwing White Power Shade?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 82955

[video=youtube;GllSfiwCEtY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GllSfiwCEtY[/video]

 

[fullmetaljesus]

I guess I'm in denial.
Science is fantastic, but sometimes they take a leap that goes beyond fact and into assumption, and just because a bunch of people take the same leap doesn't make it true.

*Cough*religion*cough*

 

[spencer rifle]

*Cough*religion*cough*

Religion is a philosophical concept. Science is the wrong tool to resolve such questions.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Religion is a philosophical concept. Science is the wrong tool to resolve such questions.

Mathematical postulation overlaps far to frequently with physical science, to the point that mathematic theory is often taken as fact before physical science has a chance to validate it. Thus enters the philosophical faith that math is infallible. After that, you get to vote on what you think is true and what isn't. "A consensus of scientists...."

Meanwhile, none of this **** actually matters. The last time any mathematic theory was tested, we split an atom. Then we combined some atoms. Nothing has been done of note since then. We postulate, we observe, we congratulate ourselves on how well we can observe things.

It's all mental masturbation.

 

[T.Lex]

Meanwhile, none of this **** actually matters. The last time any mathematic theory was tested, we split an atom. Then we combined some atoms. Nothing has been done of note since then. We postulate, we observe, we congratulate ourselves on how well we can observe things.

I think some of the gravity-as-a-wave experiments would count as a mathematical theory that was then confirmed with testing.

But that's a total side-point to your actual point, which I generally agree with.

 

[BugI02]

Mathematical postulation overlaps far to frequently with physical science, to the point that mathematic theory is often taken as fact before physical science has a chance to validate it. Thus enters the philosophical faith that math is infallible. After that, you get to vote on what you think is true and what isn't. "A consensus of scientists...."

Meanwhile, none of this **** actually matters. The last time any mathematic theory was tested, we split an atom. Then we combined some atoms. Nothing has been done of note since then. We postulate, we observe, we congratulate ourselves on how well we can observe things.

It's all mental masturbation.

Higgs field/Higgs boson. Clocking quantum tunneling and proving it isn't instantaneous. Proving wave/particle duality

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Shockley et al/Transistor effect, Josephson and superconductors - everything solid state is post atom-splitting

 

[ATOMonkey]

Higgs field/Higgs boson. Clocking quantum tunneling and proving it isn't instantaneous. Proving wave/particle duality

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Shockley et al/Transistor effect, Josephson and superconductors - everything solid state is post atom-splitting

Ok, I will give you the transistor, and I am encouraged that we've done quantum testing.

I would be more encouraged if all of this quantum science yielded something useful. Where's my light speed engine and communications systems?

 

[HoughMade]

There have been advances in "transporter" technology. Notice I said "advances" and not "they're getting close to".

 

[eldirector]

Ok, I will give you the transistor, and I am encouraged that we've done quantum testing.

I would be more encouraged if all of this quantum science yielded something useful. Where's my light speed engine and communications systems?

Uh... fiber optic communications? Cell phones? GPS?

Qbit computers are already running, just not at the consumer level.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Uh... fiber optic communications? Cell phones? GPS?

Qbit computers are already running, just not at the consumer level.

I'm not talking about advances in technology. I'm talking about using physical science to validate mathematic theory.

Reflection, refraction, wave transmission, and Helmholtz resonance, and already been validated through experiment, and have been in use for a long, long, time.

 

[eldirector]

I'm not talking about advances in technology. I'm talking about using physical science to validate mathematic theory.

Reflection, refraction, wave transmission, and Helmholtz resonance, and already been validated through experiment, and have been in use for a long, long, time.

Sorry. Thought you were talking about practical applications of quantum mechanics. Something we only have because of the math/physics research we did in QM years/decades prior.

Something more like gravity as a wave, then? Borderline being "post atomic bomb", as first posited in 1905 and then predicted by Einstein in 1916. Confirmed only in the last decade or so, though.

Trying to think of something in physics/mathematics that was only recently conceived, and then subsequently confirmed. Give me a moment....

Lots of things in the biological and physical sciences. In what, 70 years we went from describing DNA to having the full human genome documented, to very precise DNA editing and the first humans born with altered DNA (the first GMO humans).

 

[ATOMonkey]

There is a part of me that understands that the math needs to be worked out and experiments completed before engineers can make practical use of this stuff, but I still don't like squints.