Comments on: An astrophysicist explains cosmology’s theoretical failures

By: wayne

wayne — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:58:35 +0000

markedup2–
The whole “photons experience no time” thing’, is somewhat of a cartoony explanation.

IIRC, it is addressed in this presentation, but I have no time right now.

The Biggest Ideas in the Universe
Sean Carroll
#5 Time (april 2021)
https://youtu.be/KYfFCApo-Rg
54:30

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:18:23 +0000

In reply to Edward.

Edward asked, “Are astrophysicists making an assumption that is incorrect in reality?”

Yes.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:49:16 +0000

Jeff Wright wrote: “I have never liked supernovae as a standard candle. The Davy Crocket and Czar Bomb had vastly different yields….my guess is that star explosions can also vary due to unknown differences.”

The hypothesis is that a certain type of supernova will explode with the same brightness every time. When one star is in close orbit to a more massive star, then the massive star can siphon off (is that a good analogy for orbital mechanics?) material from the smaller one. The hypothesis is that the massive ones all explode when they reach the same mass, therefore they all explode with the same energy and light intensity.

But what if there are unknown differences? Jeff has a good point. Are astrophysicists making an assumption that is incorrect in reality?

By: markedup2

markedup2 — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:59:30 +0000

I’ve never understood if the quantum of space was getting bigger or if we were getting more of them. I’ve heard both answers.

There is so much weirdness in our current physics that I’m hopeful something will cause a new theory to be put forth.

Just as one naive example: If photons experience no time (as they travel at the speed of light), how can there be an inverse cubed distance relationship with their energy? From their perspective, it just magically disappears in the non-existing instant between creation and detection? They never had it to begin with? Photons being created with the energy the “will have” at detection is even odder than quantum entanglement.

Of course, nothing says the universe must make sense.

I don’t care for podcasts because I can’t pay attention to audio. Audio-only makes a good background, but I don’t retain any of it. Even talking-head video, which I also dislike, is better because I pay attention to it. Writing is best. I can read much faster than anyone can talk. I have attention focus disorder.

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 06:14:25 +0000

I have never liked supernovae as a standard candle. The Davy Crocket and Czar Bomb had vastly different yields….my guess is that star explosions can also vary due to unknown differences.

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 23:12:17 +0000

From the article:

In the two decades since astronomers discovered dark energy, we’ve come upon a little hitch:

Is it that dark energy was not discovered but hypothesized? No. It is that the discrepancy between observations and analyses make it less certain how much energy needs to be dark. could it be that dark energy is not discovered because it does not exist, and the analyses are incorrect?

Not according to those who do the analyses.

It could easily be just as incorrect as aether was a century ago, yet another hypothesized ingredient of the universe.

By: Lee Stevenson

Lee Stevenson — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:55:59 +0000

Paul Sutter has a very enjoyable podcast called “ask a spaceman”, some of it is cosmology 1.01, but he is an engaging and entertaining lecturer. A quick search for “ask a spaceman” will lead you there
For some of the readers on here that seem to live only on YouTube, it’s time to branch out… My father is 83, and believes the internet is only YouTube. He also doesn’t “get” that there is so much in depth audio space stuff out there. Start off by listening to Bob pontificating on the John batcherlow show, then download a podcast app , and just search for “space”…. Some you will like, some will be rubbish, but an “on demand” stream of science news, opinion and commentary is what made me give up all TV connection. My TV is used for the occasional WII Sports family challenge, and a few streamed movies….
There is so much more to be learned by podcasts than any amount of TV.

I know I’m talking to mostly old white dudes with this site bookmarked, many of whom think a YouTube video is a legitimate answer to a question or opinion, but there is an awful lot to learn, technically, and generally, from the podcasting sphere..

I’m honestly talking NASA employees, scientists, and even Bob!! just chatting about their jobs … It’s a wonderful new media, and anyone that would like some help accessing this fantastic new spoken word format feel free to contact me

loonyman99@gmail.com

Podcasts help me give up television… The best thing I ever did!

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:10:28 +0000

Blair,
Actually I think Bob came up with a new word for someone who argues against junk science beliefs. I am sure the definition will be expanded.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:21:11 +0000

In reply to Blair K Ivey. Blair: Typo. Increasingly my fingers and brain work on different wavelengths. Now fixed. Thank you.

By: Blair K Ivey

Blair K Ivey — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:19:56 +0000

“. . . theretical. . . ”

‘Theoretical’, or ‘heretical’? Either might work.

By: Phil Wilson

Phil Wilson — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:57:08 +0000

As stated for cosmology, the #s are fairly close. The problem that their answers are outside each techniques postulated error bars.
Similar cosmological problems lie with Dark Matter. I was an early proponent based on Vera Rubin’s work. Decades later with far better instruments, telescopes and particle accelerators we have yet to find the supposed particles that are the gravitational source.
But these two quandaries are dwarfed by the entire field of string theory with no observable falsifiable measurements. Papers galore, tenure track and no “real” results. Will string theory look like the “angels on the head of a pin” waste of minds to future historians? I think so.